Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 222

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 215←Archive 220Archive 221Archive 222Archive 223Archive 224Archive 225

Partial use of SUFFIXDASH in category names

There was no consensus at this CFD for applying MOS:SUFFIXDASH fully in all category names; seasoned editors were divided on the merits of the case. I have therefore added an exception. [1] – Fayenatic London 09:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Varities of English talk page templates

Closed as procedurally messy, and off the mark. See a new talk section below #Proposed changes to MOS:TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 15:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've not shown my face around in here in a while, but something has been brought to my attention that I reckon ought be discussed. As the esteemed watchers of this page surely know, there are a number of 'varieties of English' talk page templates in use on Wikipedia. These have gone through various forumlations, some have been deleted, others retained...and their number tends to gradually increase over time. These templates serve no good purpose: it is rarely the case that anyone needs to be informed, via talk page template, that an article is written in a specific variety, and varieties are already marked by a number of templates in articles when it is necessary. When there is a conflict over the variety to use, perhaps talk page templates can be of use, but this is a rare occasion indeed. Instead, they usually form as a form of nationalist territorial marking, and I don't think is something we should encourage.

Now we have an IP editor, 91.225.105.30 (talk · contribs), going around mass-tagging articles with templates such as Template:Ghanaian English, and I'm sure he's not the first to do this sort of thing. In the first place, can anyone identify a written standard of 'Ghanaian English' (or 'Pitcairn Islands English', for that matter) that differs from the main standards of written English, American, Commonwealth, and Commonwealth with Oxford spelling? I expect that the answer to this is NO, and WP:COMMONALITY directs us to avoid using regionalisms that might otherwise impede comprehension in what is a global encyclopaedia, precluding the inclusion of dialectal expressions that might otherwise distinguish such a variety. Secondly, I wonder if the fellow doing this tagging bothered to check as to whether the relevant articles really were written in 'Ghanaian English'. If not, the templates are essentially spewing a falsehood, and I bet that most of the writers of these articles never considered that they were writing in 'Ghanaian English', which is otherwise indistinguishable from English written anywhere else!

I think the time has come to do away with these templates altogether, but perhaps that is too radical for some of you here. Either way, I think we should come to a conclusion about the usage, meaning, and implications of these templates, and ask ourselves whether we can really condone the continued 'marking' of articles in this manner. For that reason, I hereby open the following RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that zillions of templates for "Pitcairn Islands English" and so on is silly, but it really, really would have been better to delay opening an RfC until discussion here had framed the issue. EEng 04:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I apologise for my procedural mistep, dear Mr EEng. Unfortunately, I have forgot some of the conventions of this place, so I'd appreciate if you'd forgive me. I hope that we can have a discussion in the form of an RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 04:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thou art forgiven. It's just that out-of-the-blue RfCs usually just become confused free-for-alls. Preliminary discussion can focus issues and narrow choices. EEng 04:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with EEng, since this already looks confused. Your advocacy above appears to deprecate what one might call templates for minority varieties of English, largely on the grounds of questioning whether these are suitably or precisely defined anywhere authoritative, yet the RfC makes no such distinction and simply suggests all such templates are deprecated. The practical consequences of agreeing with the proposition are not spelled out, in terms of the precise changes to the MoS or to expected editing behaviour that might follow. Being blunt, I fear you are merely wasting our time. MapReader (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
All right then, I don't seek to waste anyone's time. Therefore, I will withdraw the RfC and let more knowledgable members such as yourself deal with this problem. For the record, I think all such templates should be elimninated, not merely the likes of 'Pitcairn Islands English'. This is indeed an 'MoS issue', for the MoS is being used as the justification for the existence of these templates. ENGVAR might need to be revised, for instance, to specify what a variety of English actually is, and also to specify when such templates might have a valid use, if they have any at all. RGloucester — ☎ 12:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader might help you place the RFC elsewhere, as they have worked on this and similar talk page clutter issues elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. I've also taken the liberty of nominating two of the most egregious examples for deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 12:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Varieties of English talk page templates

WITHDRAWN
I will withdraw this RfC, due to procedural concerns specified above and below. I apologise for the disruption I've caused. RGloucester — ☎ 12:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we deprecate varities of English talk page templates?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed changes to MOS:TIES

I am withdrawing this proposal, as it is clear that my participation in this matter is neither desired nor desirable. If any more 'qualified' editor seeks to take it up, I'd be happy to support him. Our colleague My very best wishes said it best 'Don't waste your time in Wikipedia'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Above, I intended to start a discussion about varieties of English talk page templates. I've realised that the real root of the problem is the present wording of MOS:TIES, so I'd like to start a discussion about changing that wording. I apologise for the mess I created above. At present, MOS:TIES is worded as follows:

'An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. For example:

For topics with strong ties to Commonwealth of Nations countries and other former British territories, use Commonwealth English orthography, largely indistinguishable from British English in encyclopedic writing (excepting Canada, which uses a different orthography).'

This wording is problematic. The text begins with a list of a number of varieties, such as South African, Irish, and Pakistani English, implying the existence of distinct standard written varieties of English in each of these cases. It then goes on to contradict the seeming intent of the list, stating that Commonwealth varieties are basically identical in written form, which is indeed correct. British, Irish, Indian, South African, Australian, New Zealand, Pakistani, and Indian English all follow the same spelling conventions. The case of Philippine English is also problematic, as there is no evidence that it is distinct from the American standard. There is no need to distinguish between the various Commonwealth (and Irish, or other British-derrived) varieties and British English, and no reason to distinguish between the likes of Philippine English (or other American-derrived varieties) and American English. WP:COMMONALITY directs us to avoid using regionalisms that might otherwise impede comprehension in what is a global encyclopaedia, precluding the inclusion of dialectal expressions that might otherwise distinguish such varieties (e.g. the Indian numbering system).
All in all, I think this wording is appaling, and represents a conflation of differences in spoken language in various nations with written standards of English, which are largely the same across the world excepting some spelling differences that originate in British and American English. It has also given rise to numerous useless templates for varieties that cannot be clearly established as distinct (such as 'Pitcairn Islands English'), and used as a justification for nationalist territorial marking that otherwise has no encylopaedic purpose. Differences in terminology are quite different from differences in spelling, and I would argue that these should not be regulated by the MoS at all (outside of enforcing MOS:COMMONALITY), given the fluidity of language in the present era of mass communication. Therefore, I would like to propose a narrowing of scope of MOS:TIES, placing the focus on spelling differences, rather than on the 'variety' of English used. Here is my first proposal for discussion:

'An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should follow the spelling conventions of that nation. There are three conventional forms of spelling acceptable for use on Wikipedia. These are American spelling, British (or 'Commonwealth') spelling (including the Oxford spelling variant), and Canadian spelling.

I would like to have a discussion on this matter, and I am open to modifying the wording as each person sees fit. If we can reach a rough consensus on a proposal, I will propose its formal adoption in an RfC. Thank you for taking the time to read this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I oppose your proposal as stated. What you're not seeing is that a dialect is a lot more than just spelling conventions. For example, several countries like Canada italicize the names of legislative acts, which from the viewpoint of both American and British lawyers makes zero sense. The American convention is to italicize only case names and titles of published books and magazines. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Such specialised matters can be dealt with seperately, as appropriate. More than likely, there is already an MoS guideline that deals with such matters. I do not think it is for the MoS main page, which gives generalised guidance, to specify specific matters as related to the italicisation of certain works, beyond the guidance at MOS:ITAL. In any case, italicisation is a matter of orthography (spelling), so I do not agree that such a distinction is necessary. If you like, we could change the wording from 'spelling conventions' to 'orthography'. In any case, we do not write this encylopaedia in 'dialect', and your comment has one again brought forth the problem I mentioned above: conflation of spoken language with written standards. RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
You are way out of your depth on language issues if you are calling italic type a form of orthography. I figured out the difference between orthography and typography by the time I was 15 years old. (I can also recognize over two dozen major typeface families by sight alone.) User:MapReader is right that you need to stand down.
Also, your point about how such specialized matters can be dealt with separately fails to recognize that the entire point of MOS:TIES is to minimize messy edit wars over such issues. Correct use of typography is a very big deal for Americans, who are specifically trained to avoid the ransom note effect. English teachers hammer into their students that inappropriate formatting sends the message that one doesn't know how to write, and that experienced writers use bold and italics (and other typographical elements) with great care and discretion. This message is reinforced even more strongly in writing courses at the graduate level in American research universities. So it is extremely irritating to Americans to see Canadians running around WP using italics willy-nilly on things undeserving of italics. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Orthography, typography...take your pick. I need to 'stand down' because I am not so pedantic as to need to seperate the two in this case? Since when is this a place where we use our credentials to beat others into submission? That's a pretty shocking suggestion. I'm pretty sure you understand what I meant, so the language I used worked just fine (you might remember that language exists to facilitate communication!), regardless of whether it was particularly correct in that instance. In the first place, we have standard guidelines about when to use italics already (MOS:ITAL), and as far as I can see, these make no distinction between varieties of English, so I'm not sure the usage you speak about is actually permitted under the existing scheme. In second place, I do not understand how an American or Canadian difference in use of italics would be affected by this proposed change. If we need to be so pedantic as to specify 'orthographic and typographical conventions', we could do so, but in actual fact, I don't think this would be correct, as the current wording of the MoS does not seem to permit the use of variant forms of italisation, much as it does not permit single quotes being primary (as in British usage), typesetter's quotation (as in American usage), or ordinal numbered dates. In any case, please understand that there is a problem here worth fixing. I'd appreciate if you'd propose a solution to the present proliferation of supposed 'varieties of English' under the existing guidelines that cannot be independently verified as differing from the main standards. Just what do you fellows think QUALIFIES as a variety of English? RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that, in principle, COMMONALITY should be given more prominence, and that the majority of templates serve little purpose outside of marking. I think if there is a wording adjustment, it may even be worth reinforcing the importance of commonality. I also agree that the list of types and examples should be removed as quite arbitrary. However, I am wary of specifying three specific forms as acceptable. I would prefer that they be presented as the most common examples, overarching frameworks, or similar, to allow for small deviations. For example, the recent macron RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) presents a small but notable spelling deviation from what other Commonwealth countries might use. The items mentioned by Coolcaesar appear to be similarly small but notable deviations. CMD (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Such deviations are not really matters of a 'variety of English', and, as I said above, are dealt with by various guidelines we have, such as the one you point out. The MoS itself is for generalised guidance, and I don't we should be writing out such matters here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I would also oppose as stated. Such a proposal is inevitably going to run into problems by making rather glib assumptions (such as that Australian spelling is basically British spelling, which might be 90% correct but isn’t 100% so). Your wording introduces an ambiguity, since the first part suggests that articles (such as the one on Pitcairn) are to be written according to the spelling conventions of that nation, whereas the second part suggests a choice should be forced between British or British+Oxford or Canadian or American. Going with the first part doesn’t change that much (if there is to be an agreed style it may as well have a tag), whereas the second changes a lot, but is asking for trouble. Why come up with something guaranteed to upset every Australian (Irish, New Zealander, South African....) editor when there doesn’t appear to be any significant upside? MapReader (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There isn't anything 'glib' about it. If you can identify a difference in everyday spelling conventions as will arise in encylopaedic writing (other than a proper name example like 'Labor Party' in Australia, which is an altogether seperate matter, and not one of 'variety'), as indicated by reliable sources, feel free to do so. I am asking us to be rational here. The mere idea that people might be 'upset' by calling a spade a spade, is in and of itself evidence of the problem with the present guidance. The MoS does not exist to assuage the nationalist feelings of various parties. It serves to help us write an encylopaedia with a somewhat standardised form of language that is comprehensible everywhere, to any reader of English. Right now, we have a situation where we are basically legitimising linguistic standards that otherwise do not exist, in a way that contradicts our own guideline of MOS:COMMONALITY. I am simply trying to remedy this situation. RGloucester — ☎ 15:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
In my experience, an editor who feels the need to reply to each and every comment in a discussion is way too invested in a particular solution, and is well advised to stand back and see where the views of other editors lead. On the substance, a visit to the WP article on Australian English should put you straight, mate. MapReader (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I really do not appreciate your familiar tone, and furthermore, your casting of aspersions. Rather than issue unsupported assertions in an attempt to throw cold water on my attempt to open this discussion, I'd appreciate if you participated in good faith. The article on Australian English is, in the first place, not a reliable source, and in the second place, primarily deals with distinctions in Australian English as a spoken variety. The few spelling differences it identifies can easily be accepted under the 'Commonwealth' banner, as that itself is not a monolith, and contains many exceptions and variants (see for example use of 'program' for computer programs in British English). There may well have been a time when 'lorry' was British and 'truck' was American, but that's certainly not the case now. We need to issue generalised guidance, not deal with each specific case or terminiological difference. In the worse case, I'm willing to accept 'Australian English' as another particular orthographical standard we can accept, but if we're going to go down this route, we need to establish a clear criteria for what constitutes such a standard (preferably based on RS). RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I would support (with only two variants). I have always found WP:ENGVAR and particularly WP:TIES to be antithetical to WP principles. Nationalism does not belong in WP, and the MoS should acknowledge the global nature of its readership. Nationalism has clearly become a cancer on WP. —Quondum 15:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've only skimmed the above atm, as I was pinged to here, but I will immediately say that the TfD nominations you made are probably not the route you want to go to get something actioned on this matter. In any event, it'd be better to deal with all these as a set rather than deal with some low-profile sets individually without being able to deal with the others. It appears you're working to define the question above, and if it's a MOS:TIES issue then that's beyond my expertise. As for the template clutter problem, my anecdotal experience is WP:VPR has the most sympathy for such arguments, and TfD usually the least, with other venues somewhere in the middle. It seems to be a pattern for templates actually (see eg the {{Authority control}} TfD vs the recent VPR discussion and contrast in reaction). Why this difference based on venue I don't really know, but it's worth keeping in mind. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • To add: It also probably depends on what general editor sentiment on these templates is. I think the recent VPR about turning these into editnotices did have a reasonable consensus that the current format is bloat-y and something should change, but also a number of people saying moving the bloat into editnotices was just making the problem worse (a reasonable argument). I don't know if there's consensus to scrap them outright, but if not I think a decent proposal would be to scrap the editnotices and talk notices in place of templates in the article itself (these already exist, eg {{Use British English}}). These templates don't output anything and are only visible in the page source. That way, they're still useful for reference purposes, and for bots (should any use it), but won't output any visible bloat. Functionally speaking, having the designations split across article tags/talk notices/editnotices is rather redundant/unmaintainable anyway and 2/3 of those should be scrapped at minimum, IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I decided to switch gears, so to speak, and focus on first clarifying the MoS's stance on varieties of English, before dealing with the templates. As for why, it's the TIES guidance that has given rise to this slew of templates, and without tightening that guidance (to either accept a few standard varieties, or otherwise clearly establish an RS-based criteria for what constitutes such a variety), these templates will continue to crop up now and again. However, if you see fit to immediately open a seperate discussion about the templates, I would be happy to participate. RGloucester — ☎ 18:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
You’ve been told by two editors now to stand back and let other editors contribute without jumping in every time. It’s good advice. MapReader (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to continue such hostility on your part. If you have a constructive suggestion, please feel free to offer it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
That was already a very constructive suggestion. WP isn’t going to change a long-standing and controversial part of the MoS because of one random editor with an obsession. Building a broad consensus - which is what it would need - needs to be allowed to happen, or not. Your instant and somewhat manic attempts to rapidly rebut everything said here by others is undermining any chance you have of getting such a consensus, IMHO. MapReader (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I have an 'obsession', now? Merely because I observed some problematic behaviour (on the part of the encylopaedia), and want to discuss a solution to it? I suggest you withdraw that remark under WP:NPA. RGloucester — ☎ 19:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Fine, let things play out, and people can judge at the end whether or not my advice was good. MapReader (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Please change {{section link||Quotations within quotations}} to {{section link||For a quotation within a quotation}} in the "Typographic conformity" section: as the page currently stands, one has to follow two links in succession to get to the information. 116.86.4.41 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge from MOS:CAPS#Place_names to MOS:GEO

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Irrelevant text in Personal names and Place names sections.

Gist: Most of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Place names should merge to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Geographical items, because little of it pertains to capital letters in particular. It is leftover material from the merge-away of what was WP:Manual of Style/Proper names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

sdot

@EEng: In the edit summary for this revert, you requested a "citation" for the claim that these HTML entities are rarely or never used. Currently, I only see 69 pages that use &sdot;, all of which I expect use <math>...</math> (which causes math-related HTML entities to be left in place there). In contrast, there are 20525 instances of the Unicode character "⋅" in the 2021-04-20 database dump. (We've already discussed &times; elsewhere.) -- Beland (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. Look, for the 100th time, what is the purpose of all this churning? How does it improve anything to do all this bean-counting and tinkering that changes nothing the reader sees? EEng 03:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I've enumerated the benefits at length on the other thread. If you don't think the data I supplied in response to your request justifies dropping the HTML entity syntax from this page, I have no problem letting the revert stand. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There is an issue re underlinking under discussion at WT:SHIPS#Linking to list of ship launches in see also sections. Please feel free to join in. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Singular possessive

The example names are all problematic. An exception for silent s – René? Jules? – might help, but Hernán ...--2601:840:8402:34A0:E4AC:5070:6B94:8DF5 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, but you've lost me. There are ten examples under Singular nouns, if that's the sole subsection you meant (although you linked to the entire "Possessives" section, which has 17 example cases). Are you saying that there is something wrong with all ten of them? It sort of seems as though you wish there were an exception for silent s, but... there is. I'm confused by your post and what you wish to happen as a result of it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Just the proper names – which are misspelled (Cortes), illogical (illa noizes), and/or have "wrong" Wikipedia articles. --2601:840:8402:34A0:A0F7:9CB6:E965:2717 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
You speak in riddles. EEng 23:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I think English is not his native language. And I think his native tongue is Portuguese, with the spelling Cortes and all. One comment I have about said list is that "Descartes's" is a wretched example; I get that it is correct, but not only does it look like it isn't, it's also very likely to produce mispronunciations (and that's the French for you). Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Protocol for the use of then President X, then-president X

I have seen "then President/Prime Minister X" and—when applicable, "then-president/mayor/premier" used often in Wikipedia articles, so I began to use it myself in reference to persons who held office in the context of a specific historical event. Is there a protocol on this? Some editors disagree on its use. Thanks Oceanflynn (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason why the title is lower case when used with the hyphen and capitalised when used without the hyphen; I don't know if that was part of your question, but thought I would mention that in case it was. As for the hyphen, it is more correct, but dropping hyphens is extremely common in English, so I think either is fine. And the no-hyphen version I don't think is so widespread to the point that the hyphen version is deprecated. And if editors are really arguing over something so minor, I swear, they have too much time on their hands ;P. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hatnotes from Mainspace to Wikipedia

Do hatnotes from a mainspace article to a Wikipedia policy/essay (e.g. at Ani (disambiguation) or Wiki#Security) violate SELFREF? ~ HAL333 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My mind is going, Dave. I can feel it. EEng 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The standard I've always gone by is that if it's something extremely obvious, where 99% of visits to the page are probably looking for the WP-space thing, it's okay, but otherwise it's to be avoided. Putting a hatnote at ANI seems fine; putting one at arbitration would not be. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Would we want Sagan standard to have this hatnote (with no {{selfref}} wrapper)?
For the Wikipedia policy, see WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
Asking for a friend. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not Sdkb, but my answer would be: no hatnote, unless WP:EXTRAORDINARY also had a shortcut WP:SAGAN. Then, yes, hatnote. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
That's fair, though for the latter situation you'd still want the hatnote to follow guidance at WP:ITSELF right (specifically wrapping the hatnote in {{selfref}} or using a selfref=y parameter for a template that supports it)? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Right, I would. (I thought the gist of the question was the mention [on WP] at all.)— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
You're good, thanks for the responses. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Verb tense changes

I added in an example of a product in the Verb Tense section of the page. This is because all other cases are either examples of product lines (i.e. PDP-10, uses present + a past tense of who made them), series of media (i.e. Earth: Final Conflict, A Praire Home Companion, uses present plus duration of running of years/seasons), continually made series of comic books (i.e. Jumbo Comics, uses past), events (i.e. The Gordon Riots of 1780, uses past), living people (i.e. Obama, uses present + "former"), and bands and groups that no longer are active (i.e. The Beatles, uses "were" + stating when they were founded). An example of a single product in itself with the case of the subject itself being discontinued should be a good example of another example to add. Flappy Bird is among the many examples; it an item that has been discontinued by the creator but people can still own Flappy Bird so it still constitutes as "is" and not "was", but the group "The Beatles" can't be banded by anyone except the band members themselves but of course they had disbanded long ago, so that would be a "was". Likewise could be said about Jumbo Comics as a set of different book series, but the process of making the series is the "was" here because that subject is not about the series itself unlike television shows or radio shows. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Or is it with Jumbo Comics that the original group making them is no longer active or existent, and so therefore products associated with them is also considered a "was"? Maybe that's the distinction? Whatever the case, Flappy Bird the video game product is considered an "is" regardless because it still feels it still meaningfully exists. It did not "use to be" a video game product per se, nor is a dodo considered a "was" extinct bird even though clearly it is extinct and was an existent bird species. Huh? I am still quite confused here. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
That point seems too trivial to make, or exemplify. Tony (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Policy should be stricter

Quotations rarely have a proper place in encyclopedia writing. They should be more strongly discouraged and editors should be encouraged to paraphrase. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

At first, I was going to contest your statement but after further thought, I reluctantly concur. WP has several articles that have been ruined by inexperienced, immature, and/or poorly trained editors who do not understand how to quote sources properly and instead rely on excessively long blockquotes. The article on precedent comes to mind. The correct approach is to paraphrase a source as much as possible and quote only the most memorable or important portions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
What you guys are describing, though, is not a result of poor guidelines - no guideline recommends such kind of writing, and editors writing in that fashion are not likely reading the guidelines anyway, so changing the guidelines would not prevent that from happening. As for whats already there, the remedy is already available: improve it} ;). Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
What User:MarydaleEd is getting at is that it would be easier for properly trained editors to call out and get rid of such poor writing if WP had guidelines in place on that issue. Then one can simply cite the guideline. No one has time to give another person a remedial course in basic English composition; that's what MOOCs like Coursera are for.
Also, "improve it" is not a solution, because no one has the time, energy, or interest to clean up poor-quality writing by people who are either too lazy or incompetent to learn how to write properly. That's why articles like precedent can and have persisted in a state of complete disorganization for many years. The better solution is to have clear guidelines that support purging of bad edits on sight. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Luckily there's little chance of disagreement about what constitutes a bad edit worthy of being purged on sight. EEng 19:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, purge away. It's pretty much the only thing you can do about shittily-written articles. The MOS is more about ruling on one side or another of several reasonable options. We don't need an official decrying of ugly prose to get rid of it and those who would edit-war to keep it would soon find themselves with precious few allies. (User:Coolcaesar, I don't recognize your name but if you've been around a while I don't mean to tell you anything you already know.) Primergrey (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Person-first language

Hello, I am new to the MOS page and have a question. I cannot seem to locate much in Wikipedia policies and guidelines about the specific use of person-first language. Granted, I do see a small section about the importance of using gender-neutral language, which is all well and good, but the importance of person-first language extends far beyond that. Are there such policies in place and I'm not seeing them or is this not yet in place? If it's not, then why not? Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a brief mention in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language, final bullet point. -- Colin°Talk 10:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Colin. I took a look there and that particular area looks like it is in significant need of expansion. I'm unfamiliar with MOS procedure, how does one go about that? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823, Unless you are really confident about what you feel should be said, I recommend posting a suggestion to the MEDMOS talk page. You could either explain what you think needs to be said or said differently, or propose some text. Best to encourage people to comment rather than vote. Wrt the "need of expansion" it is also worth perhaps giving some examples. Are there a lot of articles that use inappropriate terminology? Is this something editors argue about. Etc. If you think the mistakes are mostly happening on non-medical articles, then there is an argument that we should say something on the main MOS or something more related to biographies, say. -- Colin°Talk 13:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ”Person-first language” is a bit of terminology that I have never encountered before... could someone give me an example, so I know what we are talking about? Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    I thought it said first-person language; no wonder I was confused. Anyway, apparently we're talking about this And see People-first_language, in which (I am startled to see) the For Dummies series is cited as a stylistic reference; I think the Criticism section is well worth reading as well, because it turns out not everyone agrees this woke approach is always desirable. EEng 17:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there are several articles that use language that aren't using this. I'm sure it has its critics like everything does but there are many compelling arguments to use it (at least, in the way that I will suggest). I can definitely discuss what person-first language is about, provide some high-quality sources about it, etc. It will have to be a bit later though since I'm busy in real life at the moment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring the comments from ignoramuses (see what I did there?) MEDMOS also links to APA style guide. This is a basic of modern professional writing. For example Guardian Style Guide entry on "epilepsy", and Association of health-care journalists. As MEDMOS notes, there are a minority of medical conditions where a proud community has developed (deaf, blind, autistic) for whom putting the condition first is part of their pride assertiveness. But those are exceptions. It is correct for us to accept that people are who they say they are and should be referred to how they want to be referred to. For example this analysis from Epilepsy & Behaviour journal indicates medical profession is very aware of this issue, and demonstrates that, when asked, people with epilepsy prefer that form 9/10 times over the deprecated "epileptics". -- Colin°Talk 09:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Participants were recruited by advertisements placed in the newsletters and on the websites of epilepsy interest groups and organizations – Yeah, no bias in that sample. EEng 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
While recruiting volunteers for a study may introduce bias in some ways (which the paper discusses) it is hard to see how else to gain access to a large number of people with epilepsy. It isn't clear to me that this method of recruitment/selection would necessarily tend the opinion in any particular direction. Clearly the respected journal it was published in considered the methods satisfactory. If instead you were to ask those attending specialist epilepsy centres, one would end up with the more severe end of the spectrum, and epilepsy isn't common enough that one could simply knock on doors or stand in a shopping mall and stop passers-by. I think the views of 638 people with epilepsy and 333 significant others is probably going to be as good as it gets as to a view on what people, in the UK anyway, think of the language choices. Whereas your method for determining an opinion worth hearing, was to ping a Wikipedian friend. Everybody here is well aware that the activist autistic community rejects person first language, so it doesn't really inform the debate wrt other medical conditions. I think "is autistic + has a blog" is about as biased as one can get wrt selecting from an opinionated minority of a population group. A study on autism, suggests a more varied range of opinions than one might think from reading blogs. -- Colin°Talk 17:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Clearly the respected journal it was published in considered the methods satisfactory – This may shock you, but respected journals in the soft sciences routinely publish statistical nonsense such as this. If we are charitable we may imagine that the editors expected their readers to recognize the paper's severe (fatal?) limitations for themselves.
  • bias ... which the paper discusses – Actually, the paper doesn't even begin to probe the internal evidence that its sample is seriously, amazingly, fantastically out of whack. For example (and no, this isn't noted in the paper) only 23% of the responding "patients" in the study were male, yet (I gather) at least half of epileptics are male. And (also not noted) an amazing 90% of the responding "family and friends" were female! I could go on.
  • I think the views of 638 people with epilepsy and 333 significant others is probably going to be as good as it gets – The size of the "sample" is irrelevant when nothing is understood about its relationship to the population (which, by the way, was never defined by the paper either). As a result, all those impressive-looking confidence intervals and significance levels are completely meaningless; that everything's carried out to n decimal places makes the joke all the more delicious. I have a degree in statistics so I assure you I know what I'm talking about here.
  • epilepsy isn't common enough that one could simply knock on doors or stand in a shopping mall and stop passers-by – So your idea is that to get a useful sample you should knock on doors or stop passers-by, if only a bigger % of the population had the characteristic sought? Really?
  • hard to see how else to gain access to a large number of people with epilepsy – just because the only approach you can think of is seriously flawed doesn't make it any less seriously flawed.
  • Everybody here is well aware that the activist autistic community rejects person first language, so it doesn't really inform the debate wrt other medical conditions – Sure it does. It reminds us to beware of sweeping generalities from people declaring themselves up-to-date.
EEng 04:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Genuine question: why are you two discussing the potential bias in one study about the preferred terminology in one group that was simply provided as an example? If anything, this just goes to show that there's never going to be consensus for one form or the other in any circumstance. Aerin17 (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Colin said that this study demonstrates that, when asked, people with epilepsy prefer [etc] [etc]; I thought it was important to make clear that it demonstrates no such thing. EEng 10:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with "someone on the internet" who just wants to argue and mischaracterises what others have written. But hey, if you think asking Guy Macon's opinion is more persuasive than getting a study published in a per reviewed journal, or think the absence of a Y chromosome might just radically alter the findings... The only people here making sweeping generalisations are those who are not interested in anyone's views but there own. -- Colin°Talk 15:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
As a proud person of ignorance (see what I did there) I really don’t think it matters whether someone writes “he was an epileptic” vs “he was a person with epilepsy”. Both are fine. If you want to change one to the other, be BOLD... if you get push back, discuss on the article talk page and don’t edit war over it. Mandating specific terminology on a project wide basis via the MOS strikes me as overkill, and it gets us into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
With respect, Blueboar, it really doesn't matter one bit what you or I think is acceptable language, as we are people (I assume) who don't have epilepsy, or some similar condition that stigmatises and marginalises people. That's why it is important to research why certain groups want to be referred to a certain way, rather than assuming things about them from our position of privilege. The majority of writers here are likely to be ignorant (joking aside) of this issue unless they work or write about healthcare issues. Language does shape how we think about people. Are they someone, a person, just like me? Or are they primarily not like me at all, dehumanised to the point where I don't even use the word person, and they become some other creature: an epileptic or an alcoholic, say. I think MEDMOS gets it about right, pointing out that is is appropriate in some contexts but not all. We have guidelines about gender-neutral language, for example, which some wouldn't bother with in their own personal writing, but which the community feels is important. I think the long-standing advice at MEDMOS is sufficient for anyone to be bold and fix up troublesome terminology while citing MOS. Whether it needs more visibility in a main MOS page probably need investigating as to whether non-medical articles often use inappropriate language. -- Colin°Talk 12:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, what you and I (along with other editors) think definitely DOES matter, since we are the ones who determine what our MOS guidance should say.
While I would certainly agree that we should be aware of the desires of those we are writing about, and take those desires into consideration - we are under no obligation to automatically accept those desires. We can (if such is our consensus) reject those desires - or (as I propose) intentionally remain silent, and neither accept nor reject those desires. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"dehumanised to the point where I don't even use the word person, and they become some other creature: an epileptic or an alcoholic" Citation needed. Or, more bluntly, I'm calling BULLSHIT. How is "epileptic" dehumanizing any more than "driver" vs "person who drives"? And I say that as an epileptic from a family that includes many epileptics. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
And I say that as an epileptic from a family that includes many epileptics – So much for we are people (I assume) who don't have epilepsy and our position of privilege. It is so, so tiresome to be lectured by the woke. EEng 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I was about to say almost exactly the same thing, except using plumber, teacher, and paramedic instead of driver.
The APA style guide was cited above, though apparently without realizing that what it actually says is Both person-first and identity-first approaches to language are designed to respect disabled persons; both are fine choices overall. It is permissible to use either approach or to mix person-first and identity-first language unless or until you know that a group clearly prefers one approach... Mixing this language may help you avoid cumbersome repetition of person with ... Of course, that leads to the question of how a "group" expresses itself; as explained at Person-first language#Criticism, for example, some autistics (or persons with autism) prefer to be referred to as persons with autism, but others prefer the term autistic. Paging my favorite autistic person with autism.
EEng 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
(Blushes). Your favorite? Aaaaaw!
I can't speak for anyone else, but to me intent is everything. I have been called "aspie" and "autie" (by people who in good-faith want to talk about my experiences) and "the kidney in room 203" (by the doctor who ended up curing the condition) and had no problem with it But "the person who..." can be a insult when spoken in a certain tone of voice and combined with other negative context. Some terms (Queer, Quaker, Mormon, Geek) started out as insults but were embraced by those who were being insulted. Others (Colored) went out 0f style but left behind traces like the name of the NAACP. And some people (imagine the worst possible tone of voice in those last two words) use pronouns as a club to beat anyone who, say, thinks it is OK to call someone "Xe" instead of "He" or "She" or that someone asking everyone to use "Tree" instead of "He" or "She" is being silly. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
WP is not in the language-policing business. If contemporary reliable sources use "epileptics", "persons with epilepsy", and "epileptic people", then all of these are and will remain permissible in WP articles, unless and until one of them becomes so disused we hardly ever see it any longer in modern sources. For example, "albino[s]" in reference to humans has gone out of fashion, so it's okay that our articles are mostly now using "people with albinism" and "person with albinism" and "albinistic people" and so on; but no one is punishable for writing "an albino" or "were albinos"; it still in common enough RS usage (mostly news rather than medical literature) that it's not wrong. This is not in any way comparable to using offensive racial epithets and the like (no matter how much false equivalence is engaged in by a certain sort of censorious and doctrinaire busybody). And we also just had an RfC about banning "committed suicide" (result: we did not ban this phrase), and another about always capitalizing "Black", but only "Black" not "White", in an ethno-racial sense (result: we are not going to just capitalize "Black"; either capitalize both or neither, consistently in the article). This is just more of exactly the same "write the way I dogmatically prefer, or else" stuff. The idea that "epileptic or alcoholic ... dehumaniz[es] to the point ... they become some other creature" than a human is just absurd nonsense. This is more of that "desperately looking for something to be offended about" stuff, and WP has way, way too much of that going on already. We have much better things to do than entertain any such extreme PoV-pushing arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
So I take it you're also against saying things like "person battling epilepsy"? EEng 04:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
On the fence. There's been some discussion, I think at WT:MOSWTW, about this sort of language ("cancer victim", "a sufferer of dermatitis", etc.), and the view generally seemed to be pretty negative; something about it painting people as victims and defining them primarily in terms of a disorder. But I do note that "[someone] living with HIV" seems pretty common, and that "is a cancer survivor" and "died after a three-year battle with cancer" don't seem to arouse as much criticism. I think it's going to depend on how judgmental and/or euphemistic it comes off in a particular case. My personal take is that the specific example "person battling epilepsy" is over-the-top and shouldn't be used, but it's not something I would write an MoS rule about, just rewrite in situ where I found it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between "a cancer victim" and "a cancer", just like there is a difference between "an epileptic person" and "an epileptic". As for the sources, there is a general move in the sources to follow the pattern that "seizures are epileptic, not people". A quick look at recent review articles on PubMed finds three (3) sources mentioning "epileptic people" and 658 that mention "people with epilepsy". I also notice that all three of the papers using the older term were written by people whose native language isn't English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't track. Maybe you need another example? "A cancer" isn't a noun ever used to refer to a person ("a Cancer" is, as an astrology thing). "A cancer" means "a type of cancer" or "a tumor", depending on context. But the noun "an epileptic" always means a person (or, in veterinary medicine, an animal); it never means "a type of epilepsy" or "a seizure". So you're comparing applies and oranges. Yes, we're all aware that there's a language reform movement that exists in the medical community. That's precisely what the very recent suicide-wording debate was predicated on. They have not yet succeeded in changing the language, only making a small dent, so WP has no reason to do anything or continue talking about it. WP does not lead, it follows. WP is not a soapbox for any form of advocacy, no matter how well-motivated. WP doesn't impose restrictions on editors that are not necessary either to produce mainstream-acceptable encyclopedic out output or to prevent internecine fighting. And we have more productive things to do that try to language-police our volunteers over extremely subjective matters (especially when many of the people being "allied at" will tell their wannabe allies that they're wrong and need to stop projecting on them. This is not FarLeftPedia (and I say that as a progressive). These reformationist pushes are coming from the progressive-activist sector, which a recent (2020) survey indicates are only about 8% of the US population [2] (and probably much less in the UK). Even among the left-of-center, far more of us (editors and, more importantly, readers) are somewhere within the traditional-liberal to passive-liberal to politically-disengaged spectrum (and nearly half of people are on the right-hand side, from moderate to devoted conservative).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish, you need to look at a dictionary before you make these kinds of pronouncements. There are at least two definitions for "an epileptic", used as a noun. (The other is a class of drugs that is more descriptively, and now more commonly, called an anti-epileptic.) As for your assertion that "a cancer" isn't ever used to refer to a person, that is typical jargon in hospitals. Search this page for "the kidney in room 203". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not propose to be covering every possible definition of such terms in every imaginable usage, only those that are contextually sensible. Nothing in this discussion has anything to do with terms for drugs; it's entirely about people and their diseases. And your hospital-jargon point was already made clear earlier, but WP does not write in hospital jargon, so it is irrelevant. "An epilepsy" meaning "a person with epiplepsy" would never, ever, find its way into encyclopedic wording (other than as something to immediately revert). It also will not be found in a dictionary, so your dictionary finger-wagging is off-base. Please remember WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:WINNING. This page does not exist as a webboard for trying to prove you're a better arguer than someone else and to keep trying to find ways to stick it to them. The point of this page is determining what MoS should say and how to apply it. We don't get there by "debate as a sport" behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to volunteer (perhaps in my own personal capacity as a person valiantly fighting the scourge of epilepsy, natch) that such language is hideous and its writers should be indeffed on sight it should perhaps be the form discouraged if we absolutely must discourage any forms. (I would prefer not to discourage any forms, but then I'm not usually inclined to these conversations at all -- I got here from a WT:MED link.) Vaticidalprophet 10:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I demand that both of you admit you knew I wasn't suggesting we describe articles subjects as battling stuff (unless, perhaps, they were knights of old) EEng 15:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I've never confessed to anything and I don't plan to start. Vaticidalprophet 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Confess! EEng 02:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Whether something requires a MOS statement/rule/advice and whether something is worth knowing, a reasonable rule or is good advice are not the same. Nor, as Blueboar notes, do editors need rules in order to be bold and fix things. I don't think MOS should be in the game of guiding every possible decision an editor makes about wording. That said, advice on this issue does appear in style guides for professional writing, so it isn't unreasonable to consider if it should appear in a Wikipedia one. This isn't about Wikipedians looking for something to be offended by, and I wish folk here were capable of having a grown up conversation about something the professionals take care over, rather than the mocking and dismissal and insults by some.
I disagree with SMcCandlish that the rule for WP usage is that something is "permissible in WP articles" until "we hardly ever see it any longer in modern sources". That would suggest Wikipedia should be way behind the curve and the last publication to adopt current language usage. Our reference should be professional-level writing by authors knowledgable about the topic -- which is exactly what our readers would wish our articles were. So usage by some newspaper journalist who writes about pop stars and refers to the child of one of them as "an epileptic" should not influence whether Wikipedia thinks that language is acceptable in medical or biographical articles. As MEDMOS notes, the language that is acceptable or preferred varies from condition to condition, and they can only speak for themselves and for their own situation. So the opinion of people on the autistic spectrum, say, is only really relevant to that group. -- Colin°Talk 10:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You can "disagree" all you want, but it's an actual fact of how WP adopts recent language shifts. You're mistaking description of process for "a rule". If there were an actual rule I would have quoted it at you. I'm telling you about experienced observation, not rule-thumping.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking, Wikipedia should be at or slightly behind the peak of the curve when it comes to language evolution. There are some exceptions when we should be more forward, where there is clear evidence of harm to people and (all-but) no dispute among the impacted group (pronouns matching expressed gender identity for example), but we should never lead - particularly where there is active dispute among an impacted group (as it seems here) or different approaches in different national varieties (e.g. capitalisation of "Black" as a racial term is almost exclusively a US thing, at least currently) although MOS:TIES can help in some instances. We should also try and avoid being the last to adopt a change that has broad consensus among contemporary sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The preferred terminology varies by group, and views-by-group cover a spectrum ranging from strong preference for person-first terminology, through very mixed feelings and no clear consensus, to groups that reject it for themselves. That "it's complicated" doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Very much worth reading Language Matters: Language and Diabetes. The is no controversy in professional healthcare writing of the need to be careful about language and to respect the wishes of those with those conditions. -- Colin°Talk 12:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely agree we should be careful about language, though how that translates into what we should actually write is the whole question. I'll note that the "Language matters" piece you link says we shouldn't say that someone has not had good diabetes control and now has a complication as a result but rather is experiencing xx condition and he/she also has diabetes. Really? The former highlights a potentially important cause-and-effect connection while the latter makes it sound as if two unconnected things just happen to be present by coincidence. EEng 15:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The problem with "has not had good diabetes control" is that it implies that good diabetes control is realistically achievable for every person and that the failure is the patient's moral fault: if only they had put in more effort, if only they had been more compliant, etc. It somehow never implies "if only the healthcare provider had checked for diabetes five years ago instead of last week" or "if only the patient wasn't forced to choose between being homeless or working a rapidly rotating day–night schedule at work" or "if only we provided education in the patient's native language or using food examples beyond the stereotypical American food or outside most people's working hours" or "if only we managed the ag industry so that apples were cheaper than high-sugar drinks" or "if only we had a better care system for elderly people, including asking whether they've got enough food, feel able to prepare it, and have been eating a healthy diet".
Also: The phrase suggested there sounds like it's for a referral. The healthcare professional receiving the patient are expected to know what constitutes a complication. Is there any medical value in making sure that they are reminded whom you want to blame for this situation?
The same problem appears informally in cancer treatment. Healthcare providers speak of patients who fail treatment, when it's quite the other way around: the treatments failed the patients. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The problem with "has not had good diabetes control" is that it implies that good diabetes control is realistically achievable for every person and that the failure is the patient's moral fault – No it doesn't. It just says the diabetes control hasn't been good. (Clarification: good here is not a moral judgment, just shorthand for "effective".) None of the rest of what you're saying seems relevant. Science and medicine deal in cause and effect. Just because A caused B doesn't mean someone's being blamed. EEng 02:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I concur with EEng on this, entirely. "is experiencing xx condition and he/she also has diabetes" is terrible and misleading writing (not just for an encylopedia but also in any kind of medical context). "Has not had good diabetes control and now has a complication" says nothing judgmental whatsoever, especially since it doesn't even say what the source(s) of the control might be, nor what a good enough level of it is. It's a simple statement of cause–effect. But this is a red herring anyway, since WP would not say "good", but "effective" or something like that, removing even accidental misinterpretation of it as a judgment. Nor would WP ascribe a cause in this way as if doing a diagnosis ourselves. "[They] failed treatment" is another red herring, since WP would never use that. We don't need to have a discussion about every stupid thing doctors or social workers says, since this is not a webboard for venting about such matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't like their suggested phrase, but I understand that many people actually do feel condemned when their healthcare providers tell them that they don't have good control of their diabetes. It's all well and good to say that they shouldn't, but the fact is that they do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
"[They] failed treatment" is another red herring, since WP would never use that.
Really? You need to start checking your assumptions before you post easily checked claims like this. Put the phrase the "WP would never use" into the search bar, and you'll see things like "Patients are said to have failed treatment if"... "Patients included in the study failed treatment"... "Among patients that had failed treatment"..."patients whose tumors express PD-L1 and who have failed treatment"..."The number of failed treatment attempts"... "in the years following a failed treatment"... "Karen Blixen Failed Treatment of Syphilis"... "unless they have a contraindication to the medication or have failed treatment with the medication in the past"... "a second patient wit this mutation failed treatment"... WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Nope. WP quoting and attributing is not WP using in it's own voice. If any of these cases are actually written in WP's own voice, they should be fixed immediately. I really hope you do understand that when someone says "WP would/should/can never do X" they mean "in any text we would consider keeping". With thousands of anonymous editors per day, some of them outright vandals, it is impossible for even the absolute worst things that could be said to actually end up getting written here, albeit only until someone notices and fixes it. So, cf. previous not about not engaging "debate for sport" antics. They are not constructive to this or any other discussion here, and you are not "WP:WINNING". If you ever misinterpret a long-term, competent editor in a way that makes them seem like they have an IQ of 60, you are making a mistake, and it makes you, not your target, look bad.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The phrases I have quoted are not from sources. Those statements are from existing Wikipedia articles. The first one is from Tuberculosis management – our article, in Wikipedia's own voice. The second is from Abituzumab – our article, in Wikipedia's own voice. The third quotation is from Elotuzumab – again, the current version of the English Wikipedia article. These were also not phrases added by IPs or newbies on their first edit; often, it's long-time editors with hundreds or thousands of edits. Instead of lecturing me about WINNING, how about you stop assuming you're always right, and actually click this link to search results and check your assumptions about what Wikipedia would "never use"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Some of those are clearly unobjectionable even by the touchy-feely standards advocated (the years following a failed treatment and failed treatment attempts clearly "blame" the treatment, or maybe the practioner, but not the patient) and, actually, I'm OK with most or all of the rest. If you say that public service announcements, educational materials for children, and so on should take pains to use language (yes, even "person with" language) that will help shape attitudes in beneficial ways, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you; but if you tell me that an already complex discussion of some medical issue should be further obfuscated by changing a second patient with this mutation failed treatment to the condition of a second patient with this mutation failed to improve to a satisfactory extent in response to treatment – sorry, no. (I will grant, however, that we should not change "patient with this mutation" to "mutant".)
The way this is going we shouldn't say "the patient's heart rhythm was abnormal" – because, you know, my heart rhythm's a poor thing, but mine own, so please don't judge me by it – nor may we say "all these patients were negative for HIV and hepatitis" because you don't want to say anything negative about someone. And if the neurosurgeon on call rushes into the emergency room and is greeted with, not "There's a depressed skull fracture in 2 and an attempted suicide, hanging, possible cord injury in 3", but rather "There's a patient experiencing a depressed skull fracture in Room 2 and in Room 3 another patient who was found hanging from a rope around the neck and may be experiencing a cord injury, but I want to be clear that the jury is still out about whether it was an attempt at suicide self-harm because we're not judging anyone", then if I'm either of those patients and my care was delayed by even 3 seconds by such nonsense, I'm suing.
There's a time and a place for the soft and poetical, and a time and a place for the businesslike presentation of facts in crisp, straightforward langauge. Encyclopedia articles are the latter. EEng 22:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I would, as someone who's spent plenty of time around both the fringes and the centres of disability self-advocacy, strongly caution against any attempt to reify use of either person-first or identity-first language. This is a "five people, six opinions" issue, and all of those opinions hate each other. Frankly, even consistency within articles is quixotic. Vaticidalprophet 10:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Pardon me, please say that consistency has quixoticism. EEng 15:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Vaticidal for saying so. Too often discussions like just get overrun by "allies" who have no shared experience with those they are claiming to speak for. That was a big problem in the months-long debates about how to write about transgender/nonbinary people back in the mid-2010s, before we had a guideline about it. It was about 95% "allies", some of them so off-base (in the same way: over-generalizing about broad classes of people to impose theor own opinion on everyone, a form of "equal but opposite objectification", and closely akin to "inspiration porn"), that actual TG people had to basically tell them to STFU. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Consistency within articles may or may not be the right answer. I think that it's not unreasonable of us to speak of "children with autism" (especially for young children) but "autistic adults". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Frankly, yes -- I've intentionally written article inconsistently. (Autism is the high-profile case, because it has the loudest self-advocacy of any neurodivergence, but there's plenty more than only it. I personally find person-first language unbearably patronizing even where it's 'uncontroversial' and grit my teeth to write "people with epilepsy".) Vaticidalprophet 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Colin that just because this is complicated doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. On the contrary, I do think it's worth having some guidance since, as he said, this can be a confusing area and preferred terminology may vary for different conditions we discuss. I also agree that we strive to achieve high-quality writing here on Wikipedia and shouldn't be terribly behind when it comes to this. The impetus for my raising the discussion was to discuss this at least in the context of medical disorders that are commonly stigmatized (e.g., substance use disorders). As Colin correctly points out, our words do have impact on our readers and can do so even below readers' awareness but with negative results. Several articles have been published on that exact topic. I'm not suggesting we become the "language police" here but I do think it's important that we don't use language that contributes to the stigma of these already marginalized people. It does make a difference when we say someone is a substance "abuser" rather than characterizing them as a person with a substance use disorder.
Some will disagree with this perspective, and that's okay, but it has been clearly shown that when such language is employed that it leads to negative implicit biases and the perception of a moral failure. This view remains widespread despite being incongruent with our modern scientific understanding of such disorders. I certainly don't claim to know everyone's individual life experience here on Wikipedia. From my own personal life experience, I have noticed that when people seem opposed to such small adjustments to writing and language, that there is often some form of personal hangup or misgiving about the topic being discussed that causes them to cling to stigmatizing terms. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that as a blanket statement for anyone who expresses reluctance to adopt such a change. It's simply something I have observed and the approach certainly isn't beyond reproach. Nevertheless, I have yet to see anyone here or elsewhere put forward any compelling evidence suggesting that the use of such stigmatizing terminology doesn't negatively affect those who read it. I think I've seen enough to suggest that it does. Here are just a few examples of literature from widely recognized addiction medicine experts highlighting the impact of such language [3], [4], and [5].
I think in real life you'll get different answers from different people in these stigmatized groups if asked whether they're offended by the use of such terminology. Some are easily offended by the most minute of sleights whereas others may shrug off the use of overtly stigmatizing terms and everything in between. The use of such language indirectly affects these people though by affecting perceptions of these groups by everyone else as well and I think that's a noteworthy point to consider. How are people with alcohol use disorders viewed in society? What about people who use heroin? Hopefully I don't need to convince anyone that such groups (and others) are heavily stigmatized and that perceptions that they (and others) are at fault for their medical conditions remain widespread and have very harmful effects. I disagree that this is about "righting a great wrong" and I think the implied slippery slope is overblown. Similarly, I don't think that just because something is "commonly used" means that it's acceptable for use and brings the ad populum fallacy to mind. Yes, I understand the point about common name, which has been raised before, but I don't find that reasoning to be very persuasive. As Colin stated above, it's simply in compliance with what numerous professional health and medical societies recommend. Language evolves over time and this area of it definitely has (for a while). From what I have seen, the current Wikipedia guidance on this topic appears relatively sparse and I think it should be expanded and refined beyond a passing mention of gender-neutral language, etc. To all of those who have contributed to the discussion so far, regardless of whether you share my perspective or not, I'm grateful to you for engaging in thoughtful discussion about this important topic and hope you will continue to do so. I think we'll forge a better encyclopedia for it in the end. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I hope it is clear I'm not among those who think person-first language should be imposed across all disabilities and medical conditions. Labelling people is always a sensitive matter. I think it important we do realise language influences how we think and that we respect how people with those conditions or divergences want to be described. That's just basic manners. I am fascinated how these language changes evolve. I've written before about the rationale given for dropping the possessive from some eponymous medical conditions and how I think that is bunk.
Those who consider their "medical condition" to be not actually a disability, or are proud to declare it part of their identity, are going to champion "identity first" language. But that only really works when the condition has a convenient adjective (autistic) and is especially powerful when the trailing "person" is dropped. While perhaps Vaticidalprophet may not see much importance between "epileptic person" and "person with epilepsy", and the latter is weaker English style, I would hope they wouldn't be comfortable writing about "epileptics". By dropping the "person" it becomes much easier to take the next step and use the label as an insult: retard and spastic being two of the most offensive disability-related terms in UK English. Consider also what happens when one reduces a woman to just their hair colour: "some blond", "a brunette", "that redhead".
I only speak English, but suspect our choice of word order is an English problem, and in some other languages perhaps there isn't the freedom to put the person first or last. There's no adjective (AFAIK) for people who get migraines. Most of the more complex syndromes and disorders have no short-form that can be used to label a person, and so there is no option but to say "a person with ____". It would be rather odd to say "Bob is a tuberous sclerosis complex person". While Vaticidalprophet may find their thoughts about patronising do-gooders colour how they view some terms, language is what it is, and probably a bit random. -- Colin°Talk 09:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I would hope [he] wouldn't be comfortable writing about "epileptics" -- well, it's how I write about myself (and a smorgasbord of other identity-first terms that 'advocates for patients' insist are inappropriate, apparently in the process deciding that defining others as 'patients' and speaking for them isn't). I haven't used the term in any articles, but where I've had the need to write on matters where I'd naturally use identity-first language but abled people have decided for themselves that this is inappropriate, I haven't so far actually been forced into using any kind of person-based construction, regardless of what aspect it focuses on (e.g. in the given case, I've only needed to discuss epilepsy as a symptom). The actual reason I wouldn't tend to use 'epileptics', 'autistics', 'schizophrenics', etc. in articles is that I think of them as informal constructs, so they're inappropriate for Wikipedia simply for being in the wrong register rather than for causing actual offense. 'People with migraines' is 'migraineurs', for what it's worth. Vaticidalprophet 10:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been meaning to point out all along that the actual usage levels vary widely. Some conditions have no "person term", for some it's the dominant usage, for others it's middle ground, and for others it's formerly common usage now considered obsolete. One size does not fit all. And in particular, this "person experiencing X" stuff is sociologist and activist language; it's not what the vast majority of people use in reference to their own conditions, even when doctors, case workers, etc. practically badger them to do so. The sea changes that actually happen in usage tend to be per-condition, and have a lot to do with grassroots. E.g. "people with albinism" has become so common because an organization (NOAH) founded by people with albinism, running mailing lists and organizing events for such people, promoted it gently among their own. And those people preferred it in the main, for one special reason: because they were used to "albino" being hurled at them by strangers (and non-stranger antagonists) exactly like a racial slur. People yelling things like "Creepy albino vampire! Get a frickin' tan!" at you is an intense and unusual driver. People with albinism lobbied their own doctors to start saying "people with albinism"; not the other way around.

But no one yells "Screw you, you attention-deficit freak!", or "Why don't you just die, you worthless epileptic! Yeah you!" on the street. There is no comparable grassroots driver of language change among most people with most medical conditions; it's almost entirely a matter of them being lobbied at by busybodies who claim to know what's best for them (and they're the same "allies" as in every other case: a privileged cluster whose demographics have been pretty well studied, the "professionally outraged" with way too much time on their hands but too little influence on real-world socio-economic forces). This is stark raving obvious in other areas with the same thing going on. E.g., even if you live in a big city with economic woes and housing shortage, you will still probably never in your entire life hear someone say they are "experiencing homelessness" or are "an unhoused person". No one uses these phrases but caseworkers and politicians. They don't like being called "a homeless", because that's weird and its intentionally weird and meant to insult (imagine being called "a jobless" or "a hairless" or "an eyeless" and you see the problem). They're not too keen, either, on being lumped together as "the homeless", a faceless mass like termites. But "homeless person/people" is just fine, and so is "being/am homeless" (not "experiencing" it).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Many people only experience homelessness for a period of time and may be in and out of it. FWIW, I do know real-life doctors who use language that you say only politicians and social workers use. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding both claims along the lines of "just because this is complicated doesn't mean it's not worth discussing": Well, past a certain point, yes it is not worth discussing on Wikipedia. WP is not going to "ban" or "require" certain formulations unless and until it has become a broad societal norm and is reflected in a preponderance of RS, across all media and genre, not just in cherry-picked specialist literature or echo-chamber websites. See how long it took to get MOS:GENDERID, and how long it took to get it saying what it does now. No amount of fist-shaking made that happen faster, and there was one F-load of fist-shaking. WP:NOT#FORUM matters. These pages do not exist to endlessly debate socio-political desires and postures and proposals. As long as "is epileptic" or "is an epileptic" or "has epilepsy" or whatever remain common in RS material (including newspapers, etc., not just American medical journals), WP will not effectively-prohibit them and say to use something else. This isn't my vague supposition; it's a statement of very predictable fact based on 15+ years of direct experience (both in support and opposition, depending on the case) with how WP processes linguistic shifts, and what actually causes them to finally occur within our e-walls: It's supermajority usage across contemporary source material of all kinds. Until that line is crossed, WP will not make a rule. And we shouldn't want it to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Completely disagree but you're entitled to your opinion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Snarky off topic comment... re: “It’s supermajority usage across contemporary source material”... unless we are talking about capitalization of things like “Prime Minister”... just saying... end snarky comment. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Cute, but it's off topic in both senses: it's not about WP adopting (early or late) a change that has been pushed by advocacy, which is what's under discussion here. Writing "prime minister" when it's not attached to a name isn't something angry advocates are engaging in cancel-culture activities about. Nor is it something WP made up out of it's own collective a[rse|ss]. It's very long-standing guidance found in all major academic-register (or formal-register, whatever you like to call it) style guides, including Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules, Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, and Garner's Modern English Usage, the four that most of MoS is based on. You and a handful of other people get perpetually pissed off about it because it doesn't match typical journalism style; but WP doesn't care and never will care. See WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:Common-style fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that just because this topic is complicated doesn't mean that we can't address it or try to fix it when it comes up on individual pages; but because it's complicated, there's really no feasible way we can try to come up with a blanket rule. As Vaticidal said, this is a "five people, six opinions" issue, even within specific communities. If we were to try to implement a rule of some sort, it would have to be something very vague like "defer to what people with this condition prefer," which is pretty much what WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language says already. It isn't our job to try to determine what the consensus is regarding specific conditions, and I think it might even be more harmful to try to say we know what's preferred than to just leave the policy as it is. Aerin17 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

For someone who doesn't think it worth discussing on Wikipedia, SMcCandlish sure has written a lot on this page, and nearly all of it unsubstantiated claims. Personal feelings on the subject extrapolated as though one speaks for a community or others seem to dominate this discussion far beyond what is helpful. Personal views are interesting only to a very minor level, probably best reserved for some blog or social media rant. Vaticidalprophet thinks that "epileptics", for example, is an "informal construct[]" and the "wrong register rather than for causing actual offense". There is nothing informal about labelling people "epileptics". It was absolutely standard mainstream professional language. The UK had "The National Society for Epileptics" until the 70s (now The National Society for Epilepsy). Scientific studies recruited and experimented on "epileptics" and professionals wrote books and papers about them. It hasn't become "informal" but has become "unacceptable", like it or not. The words "rather than for causing actual offense" is a bit of a giveaway. SMcCandlish compares albinism with epilepsy and yet again seems to be writing without knowledge or even the most cursory research. The neurologist Rajendra Kale once notably wrote "The history of epilepsy can be summarised as 4000 years of ignorance, superstition, and stigma followed by 100 years of knowledge, superstition, and stigma." -- Colin°Talk 10:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The National Society for Epilepsy??? Personally, I'm against epilepsy, but maybe that's just me. EEng 03:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, duh. All that epilepsy has to be coming from somewhere, right?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, SMcCandlish has written a lot on this page, but so have you Colin. The majority of what both of you have written is unsubstantiated claims. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that (a) some people prefer person-first language, a proportion of them find condition-first language inappropriate and a proportion of them find it offensive; (b) some people people prefer condition-first language, a proportion of them find person-first language inappropriate and a proportion of them find it offensive; and (c) some people have no particular preference either way. The relative proportions of groups a, b and c vary by condition, by relationship to the condition and possibly by location and/or other variables.
If we are writing about a specific person who has expressed a clear preference, we should respect that (e.g. "John Smith is an epileptic", "Jane Doe suffers from epilepsy", "Lesley MacDonald has a mild form of epilepsy", "Jean Dupont's epileptic daughter"). Beyond that all the evidence points to imposing a single, hard-and-fast rule covering all situations being completely inappropriate. Wikipedia should not, in 2021, be encouraging or discouraging either person-first or condition-first language across the board. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the way the debate ends: not with a bang but a whimper. EEng 03:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you; this is exactly what I wanted to say. Aerin17 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair characterising at all. What I have written is evidence-based by a body of writing and research, whereas SMcCandlish largely made up what he wrote and was caught out on it on several occasions. The style-guide at the National Center on Disability and Journalism, along with numerous statements from organisations suggests Wikipedia's main MOS is out-of-step and we could say more than Thryduulf claims. It is not nearly as indeterminable as they make out. It is not generally possible to ask the subject or find out how they wish to be referred, when writing an article. What is clear, here, is that Wikipedia discussion on the issue is unlikely to be productive, where editor's personal opinion is held to be representative of our readers and who dismiss science and evidence. -- Colin°Talk 08:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been "caught out" in absolutely nothing. Both purported "catchings out" were fallacious, as already demonstrated. Try sticking to the actual substance of the discussion instead of trying intensely to personalize the dispute in a demonizing manner. I'll remind you that this is a discretionary-sanctions topic, and was put under discretionary sanctions precisely because of editors being shitty and character-assassinating at each other instead of focusing on the content. Also, this is not an article, it's an internal consensus discussion. The entire thing is informed opinion, grounded primarily in policy and WP:5P and WP:ENC, an interplay between inductive and deductive reasoning. In short, it's "original research". Cherry-picking a few sources that agree with you means nothing. You have one and only one thing to prove here: that the vast majority of modern English-language sources that are reliable enough WP would ever cite, actually write the way you wish they would write. Until you can prove that, you have no case to make, because WP does not lead when it comes to language, it follows. This has been tested and demonstrated again and again and again. If I had never been born, this would still be true, and all of this would play out exactly the same way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: I just checked, and I see that you received as {{subst:Ds/alert|mos}} as recently as February, so you should already know better than to engage in "go ad hominem on that editor I don't agree with" behavior here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Look on the bright side... now you can go on your favorite social media platform and bitch about how “wrong” Wikipedia is. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That's not my thing at all, Blueboar, and I'm old enough here to know this doesn't represent Wikipedia any more than talk Jimbo does. -- Colin°Talk 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason why participants in this discussion have chosen to not notify WikiProject Disability about it? Please see WP:WikiProject Disability/Style advice#People-first language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know about that style advice, but having read it it seems to mostly back up what I was saying - Wikipedia does not promote one style over another, but follows the sources. Following the sources tends to correspond to using people-first in some cases and not in others, with people with different conditions preferring different language styles, and regional varieties of English also having an impact. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Roger, I didn't know the project had a style guide. Perhaps WP:MEDMOS could refer to it? Thryduulf, I don't think it backs up what you said at all, and is more in line with what I've been saying, and what MEDMOS says, and what the better general disability guidelines say (e.g. this significant one). Rather than WP saying definitively which to use at all times (which is the strawman some have been attacking), both guides give editors the knowledge that there are these schools-of-thought, as it were, about how to refer to people. They explain it is likely one approach is better for X,Y and Z and another for A, B and C, and give a clue as to why. At the start of this page, there was the question by Blueboar where they were honest enough to admit they hadn't heard of this before. If you don't even know about something, you can't even begin to investigate for yourself and come to an educated choice. I'm glad both MEDMOS and the disability guide have been introducing editors to these issues (in the case of MEDMOS, for 14 years). -- Colin°Talk 08:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
What would you say, Dodger67, if I asked why you have chosen to wait until now to raise that point, and have chosen to not do it yourself? And the link you gave is [citation needed]. EEng 00:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • MoS actually already addresses this. I was having an itch about this at the back of my brain, and went looking so I could scratch it. See MOS:EUPHEMISM, and especially its footnote: Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled people. The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. [Footnote: The National Federation of the Blind, for instance, opposes terms such as sightless, in favor of the straightforward blind. Similarly, the same group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as people with blindness for the simpler phrase blind people; see "Resolution 93-01", National Federation of the Blind, July 9, 1993, accessed April 26, 2010.] And that's in addition to other material there about not using euphemisms and circumlocutions in writing about diseases, either.

    In short, there is no universal approach to this, so we are not in a position to "legislate" that WP editors must use particular circumlocutions, especially since we already have a guideline largely against using them in the first place. Follow the sources, and prefer what modern sources in the aggregate are doing, without antagonizing other editors if they don't write exactly the way you'd like them to. "Sources" here means all of them, across genres and audiences, including mainstream newspapers. Not just specialized material, which tends to be dominated by activistic hand-wringing about patients' and families' sensitivity, which makes sense given that doctors have a pretty intense and necessarily personal-yet-professional relationships with patients and their families. WP does not, and is just an information repository.

    It's probably okay to change a particular instance in a particular article if the result reads better in that context, and the construction used is genuinely common in reliable, mainstrea sources, and is not pushing a viewpoint (e.g. "people with albinism" instead of "albinos" is okay, but not "the differently abled" in place of "disabled people" or "people with disabilities"). However, if you go about doing this obsessively and programmatically at page after page, you're going to run afoul of WP:MEATBOT and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, piss off a lot of people, and end up at WP:ANI for a topic-ban, so don't do it.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You keep attacking this "universal approach" strawman. The euphemism guideline says nothing about "circumlocutions" as you call them. That unnecessarily opinionated language appears in a footnote, citing a long rant in a magazine . We all already know that blind advocacy groups hate people-first, but they also speak only for themselves. Nobody here is threatening to bot-edit articles into one style. Nobody has ever loved "differently abled". Your arguments are just strawmen after strawmen. I don't really get the impression you are reading what anyone here has written, but just want to have a good old rant to display your prejudices, which we already knew at the start. Unwatching. Better things to do. -- Colin°Talk 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Your argument is shade-throwing after shade-throwing, with the clearly purpose of personally antagonizing another editor instead of sticking to the content under discussion (i.e., what the guideline should say and why). If it does not stop, the next step will be a WP:AE report. Back to the substance: What your argument is missing is that the footnotes of the guideline are part of the guideline, and the advice in it remains the same, whether you like the word "circumlocution" or not, whether the footnote existed or not. It's immaterial whether anyone is unhappy or happy with advocacy groups for the blind; this is a "doctrinal" squabble that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, basically. The fact that the squabble is real-world and long-term is itself evidence against WP picking a side on this wording question. Authoritative voices on the matter – RS – are vociferously contradicting each other. "They speak only for themselves" is true of all opinion sources on this question. Warning all sides away from trying to "sweeping change"-enforce whatever result might come out of this discussion, if it concludes with a clear result at all, is not a straw man; it's simply good advice. And you did not absorb it and apparently have not read the cited guideline (it is not about bot-editing, but about human editing in a bot-like manner. That why it's called MEATBOT not BOT.) PS: I never said you or anyone else here "loved" that phrase, so railing against me for supposedly doing so is an actual straw man. I used the phrase as an excellent example of obviously biased euphemism, counter to an example of person-first usage that has become unusually, almost extremely, well accepted. Most cases are smack in the middle of these two extremes. Cf. Thryddulf's gist: WP is not in a position to advocate specific language because even the RS are not consistent about it, the patient communities of particular conditions don't agree, and the overall shape of preference varies by condition, among other things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: The NCDJ style guide you like so much, in its intro, bullet point 4, addresses exactly the kind of "different abled" euphemism as wording to be avoided, exactly as I've suggested. If we're all agreeing that it does in fact represent one extreme, and that best-accepted person-first constructions are the other pole, then what exactly are you arguing about in relation to it, and why?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am very impressed with this (linked by Colin above): National Center on Disability and Journalism - Disability Language Style Guide. It does recommend person-first as a default, but follows with very good discussions of specific topic areas. I'm not sure how we'd use it exactly, because it's so detailed. Perhaps we could start by just pointing editors to it (at relevant places in MOS/MEDMOS) and then see, after a year or so, how people feel about it and whether we want to encourage its use more explicitly. Please give it a read. EEng 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    (responding to ping). Thanks for that comment. I've added it to MEDMOS, alongside the existing APA guide. Both are thoughtful guides reflecting the difficulties in choosing good wording. They aren't perfect, but a whole lot better than what MOS:EUPHEMISM cites: a magazine that published two letters from very angry people nearly 30 years ago. -- Colin°Talk 17:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    Part of what I like about the "Disability Language Style Guide" is that, in the discussion for each phrase or concept, it reviews the AP (not APA) style guide's recommendation. Frankly, I think we should look more to the AP than to the APA.
    I think this conversation would have gone much differently had it been opened as "Let's review how to write about disability", with a link to that guide, instead of featuring person-first from the beginning. EEng 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Possibly, but it has to be kept in mind that the works you're referring to are in one sense language-reform advocacy pieces, and in another sense prescriptive style guides for contexts that have nothing to do with encyclopedia writing. They do contain some reasonable things, but they're clearly one side of something that's an ongoing real-world dispute even within their specific field. It's like siding with AP Stylebook versus NYT Manual of Style and Usage in American journalism, or Guardian and Observer style guide [sic] versus The Economist Style Guide in British journalism, then on top of that PoV side-taking also declaring that these works which don't relate to our writing needs should make us change our own style guide. (You actually write "I think we should look more to the AP" ....) WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is not written in news style." It says that for a reason. It's also not written in "doctors talking to and writing for their suffering patience and their grieving families and being very careful to avoid frivolous malpractice lawsuits" style. We shouldn't have to add that to the policy. The whole point of WP:NOT is "WP isn't any of this short list of things, from which you can intuit that it isn't any of 10,000 other things. It is and only is an encyclopedia."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose everything said above. Herostratus (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    ... on both sides of the issue. EEng 20:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    And for balance, I shall oppose everything said below, whatever it is. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    And right you are ... --Trovatore (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Stress marks in Russian words

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Since the RfC below is inextricably linked to the preceding discussion it makes the most sense to evaluate them as a singular whole. Many RfC comments explicitly invoked the preceding discussion so it would be inappropriate to apply a formal close to the RfC only. Once the irrelevant arguments are discarded, there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks. This is a slightly odd case where an RfC proposal does not actually add any new guidance but instead re-iterates existing policies like WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:DIACRITICS. This discussion establishes that stress marks in Cyrillic should be used in accordance with those policies, that is, only where the best-quality English language sources demonstrate that their use is generally accepted as a best practice. Although the RfC portion read alone shows some support for SMcCandlish's specific proposed language as an addition to the MOS, I do not see that there is an acceptance for altering the MOS when reading the discussion as a whole. If further disruption considering this issue requires clarification, this discussion can be linked as normal to demonstrate this interpretation has consensus support. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Stress marks

Stress marks discussion

There is a dispute on whether the Russian terms and names should include the accents that mark the stressed vowel, as in "Никола́й Андре́евич Ри́мский-Ко́рсаков", or should the correct spelling be preferred ("Николай Андреевич Римский-Корсаков"). In fact, these accents are not part of the regular Russian orthography, it's rather a kludge that exists to compensate for the lack of a full IPA transcriptions. The problem is that most readers unfamiliar with Russian don't realize what it is, they just think that the words are spelled correctly. "Because I've copied it from Wikipedia!".

For a couple of years I've been cleaning the articles from that, and by request of one of the curious users I wrote an essay that describes the matter: Stress marks in Russian words. However, recently I've met a significant population of users (by the number of two) who oppose to my edits so strongly that I have to draw your attention now. Please see the current discussion and express your opinions.

See also:

Ideally, we should form a statement to be included in MoS, so that the controversies no longer arise. Even if we don't, any input will still be helpful. — Mike Novikoff 13:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Taurus Littrow, who wrote an excessive amount of comments below, is now indeffed and furthermore globally locked (see CentralAuth), which ultimately resulted from his attitude to this very dispute. So I've taken the liberty to boldly mark his comments with <s>, in hope that the uninvolved users, whom I encourage to comment, can read the discussion. — Mike Novikoff 02:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Important Note: Unlike claimed above, both spellings (stressed and unstressed) are correct. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not exactly. The whole point is that the stress-marked variants are used very seldom and only on certain occasions, and thus do not represent the common spelling. You may call them "correct" only in a narrow sense.
And I strongly oppose that you edit the essay before gaining any consensus to do so. It now looks like I wrote something that I actually didn't. :\ — Mike Novikoff 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The use of stresses is a different question. And what is "common spelling"? In encyclopedias, we have one common and accepted spelling (with stresses), and in books, another common spelling (no stresses). But you can't say that one spelling is correct and the other is wrong. That would be utterly misleading. Stresses are not mandatory, but they are not forbidden either. "Not mandatory" and "forbidden" are two different things. P.S. The essay doesn't belong to you; it's in common space, and some other users actually asked me to edit it. One other user edited it before me, anyway, and another after me (I also included a sentence suggested by a third user). You can give a link to the old version here, and we can discuss the whole thing on the talk page. Anyway, I tried to include both points of view, and I didn't remove most of your arguments (save for the irrelevant or misleading stuff). Let's not complicate things. Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
You didn't word this invitation neutrally. So I'll try to help clear up the situation a bit.
You have tried to get rid of stress marks in the Russian Wikipedia and failed. Here: ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Общий/2018/09#Ударения в русских словах. So it is not only two users. The whole Russian Wikipedia opposes you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to echo this. This statement is certainly not neutrally worded, especially w.r.t. the mischaracterisation of accents marks. The description above could be interpreted as meaning that are an invention of Wikipedians, which is false. It is true that they are not a part of standard common everyday written Russian as is found in newspapers, books, signage etc. that is intended for normal L1 Russian speakers; however, they are common in texts for younger L1-speaking children or beginning L2 learners and, more relevantly here, have precedent in certain Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries aimed at adult L1 speakers. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Mike Novikoff's statement is clearly very biased, one-sided and derisive. Frankly, I've got quite tired of this discussion, and I already listed my arguments for using accents (see the above links), so I will be brief this time and just say that using stress marks in Russian encyclopedias and dictionaries (in entries) is at least 200-year-old common practice which is still in use (see the Great Russian Encyclopedia in 36 volumes, published only recently, between 2004 and 2017, by the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences). Stress marks are also used in all polysyllabic words in books for young Russian children and in reading books for foreigners. I guess that solves the issue. Taurus Littrow (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
> The whole Russian Wikipedia opposes you.
That's not even remotely true. The discussions on this matter appeared there since at least 2011 ([1], [2], [3]) when I hadn't even been there. @Jack who built the house: ping. — Mike Novikoff 08:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Both discussions concern dictionary words. While what you do is removing stress marks from people's names. No one in the Russian Wikipedia would ever agree to that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Just like in that old joke on the Russain army, where an officer says: "Hey, the three of you! I tell you both! Yes, you, man!"
In fact, there were much more than three discussions, some of them even successful, but I'm not going to reveal everything so that you don't go and edit war there now. I guess you are having enough fun there already, aren't you?
Back to the topic, there's no use to look at a non-consensus (there has never been one!) of a barbarian wiki that in 2021 still practices SOB-formed datelinks and infobox flags. They are copulating with geese, you see. — Mike Novikoff 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Is that a Russian expression? If not, I was considering asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It was a poor joke, sorry. I'll strike it out. — Mike Novikoff 10:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh crumbs, it was a joke. Now even more intrigued. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd dare to suggest that your joke is completely irrelevant here. Also, please avoid personal attacks like this one: "I guess you are having enough fun there already, aren't you?" — No personal attacks or harassment. Let's be polite. Thanks. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I agree, this can be a real problem for those unfamiliar with the Russian orthography, who confuse the stress mark with other diacritics. Mike made a pretty strong argument in his favor. On the part of opponents, I see the argument that stress marks are used in Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries (especially for children). However, here is an encyclopedia for adults in English.
P.S. At the same time, I have no opinion about the stress marks in the Russian Wikipedia, perhaps Mike really had no arguments to remove them in ru-wiki, but here is another case.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Nicoljaus "stress marks are used in Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries (especially for children)" – There has been a misinterpretation on your part. Stress marks are used in: 1) encyclopaediae and dictionaries (which are intended both for adults and children); 2) books for small Russian children; and 3) reading books for foreigners (both adults and children).
"However, here is an encyclopedia for adults in English." See 3) above. Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you’ll argue with. Here, in any case, not a book for L2 learners. Give an example where a common English-language encyclopedia uses the Russian spelling with stress marks.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
What exactly don't you understand? I explained that your statement re. children is wrong. And why don't you give an example of a common English-language encyclopedia that doesn't use stress marks? Note that stresses are used in Russian-English and English-Russian dictionaries (in Russian words), including those published in English-speaking countries. Can it be considered a strong argument for using stresses? One way or another, there is nothing wrong in using stresses in Russian words; they are just not used in "normal" books, newspapers, magazines, etc., where they are considered excessive. But even in those texts accents are still used in some words (e.g., to help distinguish words which are written the same). I repeat: it is not a mistake to use accents in Russian words. And stresses are used on a large scale for guidance purposes, including in texts intended for non-Russian speakers. I'd dare to say that English Wikipedia can be considered such a text. Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
And why don't you give an example of a common English-language encyclopedia that doesn't use stress marks? -- Well, for example see: Russian-English Geographical-encyclopedia there is nothing wrong in using stresses in Russian words -- I am not saying that using the stress mark is something wrong. I say that when a person, who does not know that this is a stress mark, sees such a spelling in the English Wikipedia, they will think that this is a common variant of Russian orthography. While this is a variant that is rarely used, only for special purposes. This can lead to confusion and you need to think about how to avoid it. At the same time, the information on where to put in stress is already given by the entry in the IPA.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. However, stresses are used in the English-Russian Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook, published only recently, in September 2020. It only supports my statement that there is nothing wrong in using stresses.
Whether the IPA can be used to replace (rather than complement) the stresses has already been discussed elsewhere (see the links above), so I won't repeat the arguments pro and contra (I've got quite tired of this stuff).
"This can lead to confusion and you need to think about how to avoid it." – OK, we can discuss that, but just removing stresses (which are of great help) is obviously not a very good solution. We could probably write a notice to this effect and put it in some visible place, probably in the Russian language article. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Would a hover-over notice briefly explaining the situation with stress-marking accents be appropriate perhaps? Stephen MUFC (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea. Whatever way we choose, I believe we could write a bot that would do the necessary changes automatically in all the articles. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Could it not just be added as a feature of the template used to demarcate Russian Cyrillic in the wiki code? Stephen MUFC (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
That would be perfect, sure. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If we were to follow the same kind of logic ("it's confusing, so remove it"), we could delete the patronymics as well. They are not used in "normal" texts either. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Taurus Littrow:However, stresses are used in the English-Russian Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook -- Yes, in dictionaries sometimes spelling with a stress mark is done instead of IPA, but I have never seen that both are used at the same time, this is really confusing. In encyclopedias in English I have never seen Cyrillic with stress marks.
We could probably write a notice to this effect and put it in some visible place, probably in the Russian language article. -- If you mean the Russian interwiki article, then I don't think this is a good idea, since it is unlikely that an English reader will go there. The notice ("a feature of the template") seems like a better idea.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Nicoljaus If you mean the Russian interwiki article – No, I meant the Russian language article on enwiki (where the use of stresses is actually explained). But I agree that "a feature of the template" is a much better idea. Taurus Littrow (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
If even the Russian Wikipedia disagrees with stripping these marks, that's suggestive that we should keep them as well. But the real question for en.WP is what do most modern, high-quality, English-language sources do, when they also present these names and terms in Cyrillic? And not dictionaries, since they may be including them for pronunciation-guide reasons. If it's usual to include them, then WP should include them. If it's not, then it's not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think usually English-language encyclopaediae actually either don't include the Russian-language name at all or only use a transliteration rather than Cyrillic. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Which is one of the reasons I said modern, high-quality, English-language sources, not English-language encyclopedias.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The two aren't mutually exclusive but apologies for too hastily reading your post. It is also true, however, that even history or politics books in English about Russia(ns) don't tend to provide Cyrillic but may give a transliteration. I can't say for certain that there are sources which do use Cyrillic - I'm sure there must be some out there - but I can't remember ever having encountered any and, although I'm not an expert, I (have) read a fair amount of relevant material. Stephen MUFC (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I didn't mean they're mutually exclusive, but that one is a large class and the other a subset (which we already know is doing it for pronunciation reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish I believe that English-language sources (other than dictionaries and reading books) don't include Russian spellings (with or without stress marks) at all. You can only see Russian spellings in bilingual dictionaries and reading or learning books, and they are almost universally accompanied by stress marks, whose main reason is indeed to help with the pronunciation. So if you do add Russian spellings here or in an another encyclopedia, I don't see why you should exclude the stress marks. There's no harm in adding them other than a possible misunderstanding as to their use in normal texts, which can be easily solved by adding an explanatory note. Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that serious works of biography, etc., never provide the Cyrillic of anyone's name. I don't read a lot of Russia-related stuff, but it's certainly common in academic sources to include the Greek-alphabet name along with the Latin-alphabet transliteration when writing about Greek subjects. I'm not even suggesting this need be done on a case-by-case basis. If, for example, very few English-language sources on a new Russian movie star gave their Cyrillic name, that's irrelevant if lots of English book sources do give Cyrillic names of Russian politicians, generals, composers, authors, etc., and a dominant style (with the marks, or not) can be discerned from modern works of this sort. If a source analysis of this source proves fruitless, then I'm not sure I know what to !vote here. I like being consistent with ru.WP, but if they're only doing it as a pronunciation aid, because their equivalents of WP:NOTDICT and WP:AT are very different, then that wouldn't be a good rationale to apply at en.WP. But if these marks are common in everyday works like newspapers and adult books in Russian, that would refute the claim these are only used as pronunciation aids for children's/learners' materials and dictionaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish Well, I've read a lot of Russian-related stuff in English, and I don't remember seeing Russian spellings. They just transliterate and translate anything written in Russian, including titles of books in bibliographies. Just checked some books on space exploration, and that's indeed the case; I could find nothing in Cyrillic in them. One book is actually a translation from Russian, and even its original title was transliterated. So the situation is completely different from that for Greek-related subjects. Weird, but true.
But if these marks are common in everyday works like newspapers and adult books in Russian – They're NOT common there, that's the point. Nobody uses them in Russian newspapers and books for persons older than 7 years or so.
that would refute the claim these are only used as pronunciation aids for children's/learners' materials and dictionaries – Well, this exactly what they say in the above-mentioned Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook: "Russian words are provided with stress marks for proper pronunciation." Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, then. This "Weird, but true" situation is unfortunate, but I guess it is what it is. Unless there's some big trove of sources and facts we've missed, I'm more swayed by your argument. It sounds more and more like ru.WP is lacing its article titles with pronunciation information, which might be entirely normal under their own policies but is not under ours. One of the reasons I've held out a bit on this is that in the case of Spanish diacritics, they were originally introduced for a similar reason, and slowly became a norm of the language. But if there's no evidence this is the ongoing case in Russian, and considerable evidence to the contrary, I can't see a reason to treat these on en.WP as actual diacritics that are part of the natural language, even if we're normally skeptical of attempts to suppress diacritics (and "para-diacritics" like Vietnamese tone marks, which are part of the standardized language, not something limited to kids books and dictionaries).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Please note that patronymics are not part of the natural written language either; they are only used in personal documents, such as passports, and you can barely see them in common English-language sources. In Russian, they are used sometimes in oral language, usually as a polite address (first name + patronymic; no surname). So one can take the arguments against using stress marks on English Wiki and apply them to patronymics. Same thing with the "Old Style" for birth and death dates, the pre-reformed Russian spelling for names, etc. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, SMcCandlish. No, the situation in Russian is completely different from Spanish. At first, stress marks were required in every word (and there were three types of them), but gradually they died away. In Russian encyclopedias (on which the ru-wiki is oriented), a variant with stress marks is traditionally given in the title of the article to clarify the pronunciation. It also can be used for some other cases. There is some information about this in the book: A Reference Grammar of Russian by Alan Timberlake. Also, this book says: "If stress is marked generally - it usually is not, but it can be, for example, in dictionaries or pedagogical texts for foreigners..." Taurus Littrow is right, and the use of Cyrillic in English books is quite rare, but I have found several variants and they are usually unstressed. The Russian-English Geographical-encyclopedia was mentioned above. Here's another one: The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft. By the way, I see that the Cyrillic alphabet is also used in educational books without stress: [6], [7].--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Stress marks will never die out in Russian-language encyclopedias, because without stress marks there will often be no way to determine the correct pronunciation.

The stress in Russian words is most important. A misplaced stress may alter the meaning of a word (зáмок – castle; замóк – lock), or render it incomprehensible.
— http://russianlearn.com/grammar/category/stress

I can give more examples. Take Alexandra Trusova, for example. "Trúsova" means "Cowardova". But "Trusóva" would mean something like "Pantiesova". It wouldn't be nice to call her like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
without stress marks there will often be no way to determine the correct pronunciation -- It's true for Russian-language encyclopedias, but here we have IPA--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I already pointed out that, in my opinion, IPA can be used as an additional tool, but not as a replacement of such an easy and elegant solution as stress marks. Is there a rule that prohibits using both stresses and IPA? I don't think so. P.S. Note that the article you mentioned, IPA, actually uses stress marks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Stress marks are the best choice if you know they are stress marks. The only thing that worries me is that in the overwhelming majority of languages there is no problem with stress at all (it is always in the same place) and the acute sign does not mean stress, but something else.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I already mentioned that the possible misunderstanding can be solved by adding an explanatory note or (as proposed by SMcCandlish below) by indicating both spellings, with and without stresses. But I definitely don't like the "confusing so delete" approach. Note that Russia-related articles are generally very confusing, especially if they are about people who lived before 1918: two birth dates, two death dates, two Cyrillic spellings, etc. etc. The patronymics are very confusing, too. I keep seeing serious sources using and misusing the patronymics. Some foreigners believe they are mandatory, while others treat them as if they were a second American name and abbreviate them (e.g., "Sergey P. Korolev" - we never do it in Russian). Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
tl;dr completely irrelevant to the topic. — Mike Novikoff 17:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I apologize for that. Anyway, some of the stuff in your essay on stresses is also completely irrelevant ("Russian Wikipedia (that has a series of similar technical cargo cults, such as reverse name notation [Surname, Name] in article names, as if there's no DEFAULTSORT [Wikidata shows that ruwiki is the only Wikipedia that has it], and so on"). --Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
something like "Pantiesova" – I see you are mostly concerned of the biographical articles. Once again, as Nicoljaus already said, "here is an encyclopedia for adults in English", not Simple English Wikipedia for children or people with disorders. There are many names (in various languages) that may seem funny to someone, or that someone may try to make fun of, but doing so is completely childish, and a reasonable adult won't even think of it. Remember what Wikipedia is not: "not a complete exposition of all possible details" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), and in particular not a dictionary. Articles on persons are about persons, not about their names. It's necessary to give the correct spelling of a name (readers do search for names, and do copy names from Wikipedia), it's optional to give the pronunciation (that's what IPA is for), and to deal with the name's etymology is out of scope. Even a dictionary won't do that, unless it's a specialized dictionary of proper names. — Mike Novikoff 09:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it is usually impossible to determine the correct stress placement in a Russian family name. I know this by experience. In October I renamed a number of Russia-related articles in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it was more than often that I had to go to YouTube to search for news announcements, interviews, etc. (Cause the Russian Wikipedia didn't have all the stresses marked. And it doesn't have many articles that the English and Spanish Wikipedias have. This is because the Russian Wikipedia is not as developed as the Spanish and English ones. And because it has stricter notablility rules.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Potential solution: This appears to be analogous enough to different ways of transliterating Chinese, etc., that we already have a functional, well-accepted way to approach this: The article title should be in the Latin orthography that is most common for that particular subject in English-language reliable sources. The lead sentence of the article should give that spelling first, then parenthetically provide the bare Cyrillic and the stress-marked Cyrillic. It need not provide a stress-marked variant of the Latin-alphabet transliteration unless this is also showing up in sources (or, I suppose if that one does show up, but stress-marked Cyrillic hasn't been found in a source yet, then omit that one). Basically, just account for the variants found in sources, and make sure that for the Latin-script ones that they redirect to the same article. Maybe we can even create a template (or add features to {{lang-ru}}) to indicate with little links what these different orthographies are, as we do in {{lang-zh}} for different Chinese transliteration orthographies.

I think this would be an encyclopedic approach, since these marked-up spellings are attested in RS (for specific purposes today), and at one time, if I'm understanding Nicoljaus correctly, were much more common, such that older people or people reading older materials may be specifically expecting or searching for those spellings. So, we should just provide them all without trying to decide is one is "right" and the other(s) "wrong". WP:CONSISTENT is just one criterion and we have to treat it with WP:Common sense: It's perfectly fine if, for whatever reasons, some particular subject has become better known with those marks in the name than without them (in either orthography or both, though only the Latin orthography will matter for article title determination purposes at en.WP). But by default, we would not be adding the marks just to indicate punctuation the way ru.WP does; it's clear that their title policy is very different from ours.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this solution, in general lines (minor details can be discussed). We definitely must use an encyclopedic approach since this is an encyclopedia. Just to clarify one thing: I don't know what kind of period Nicoljaus is referring to (when stress marks were mandatory), but these must be very old times, like 300 or so years ago. I've read many 19th-century books, and they don't have stress marks. So you have to be really old to expect to see stress marks in books, lol. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to the times before Peter the Great. The stress mark in handwritten texts (which were less affected by Peter's reforms) fell out of use in the second half of the 18th century (see paper in Russian).--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought. Peter's reform of the Russian alphabet (1708–1710) is actually described here. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both for clarifying the origins of the subj, I didn't know that. Very interesting indeed. So for us contemporary Russians they originate in the first grade of elementary school, and historically they are from the epoch before Peter the Great, being abolished by him. Let's remember that for making any further decisions. — Mike Novikoff 10:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Peter the Great didn't abolish the stress marks, their use just ceased to be mandatory. Taurus Littrow (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There are no two Cyrillic Russian orthographies today, there's only one. And, unlike Chinese, it's not a transliteration of something else. I can't even imagine a subject that is "better known with those marks in the name than without them". For instance, they are never used in official documents that identify people (birth certificates, passports, etc). — Mike Novikoff 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Note that birth certificates and passports always use patronymics. Does it mean we should use them on enwiki, too (in the name of an article, not just in the lead)? Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I guess neither patronymics nor article titles are subject of this discussion. — Mike Novikoff 09:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
then parenthetically provide the bare Cyrillic and the stress-marked Cyrillic. – Just no. We have too much WP:LEADCLUTTER already. Have in mind that {{lang-ru}} names are commonly provided for subjects associated with neighboring languages ({{lang-uk}}, {{lang-be}}, {{lang-kk}}), and having two near-identical Russian renderings next to each other would be a solution of a non-issue that would contribute to a much greater problem. No such user (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, greetings, and thank you for your approach. I've always thought you are against redundancy, just like me (and isn't it one of the main goals of MoS overall?), and now I have to agree with the user above: double rendering of Cyrillic Russian would be awfully redundant. I'm always fond of consistency too, so I'm for the consistent implementation of the IPA throughout the Wikipedia, regardless of the language.
And one more thing: there is no legitimate "stress-marked variant of the Latin-alphabet transliteration", it's a madness done by those who just don't know what they're doing. That's why I often refer to WP:RUROM that describes the correct current practice of transliteration from Russian. — Mike Novikoff 12:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
it's a madness [sic!] done by those who just don't know what they're doing. Please read Civility: "Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages." // That applies to everyone. Let's keep this discussion civil. Thanks. – Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Novikoff: Well, okay. If they're just not used enough to really matter, then don't put them in the lead after all. Just create redirects so they work in getting people to the right page. I decline to stress about this. :-) PS: Can someone tell me the Russian term for this kind of "pronunciation markup" (in Russian and romanized), and is there a ru.wikipedia article about it, or section at least, if we don't have anything on it at en.wikipedia? Would like to read more about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: The Russian terms are ударение (udareniye) and знак ударения (znak udareniya). See also Stress (linguistics) § Spelling and notation for stress. — Mike Novikoff 06:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not have an opinion but want to set out the argument as I understand it. An example of the issue is diff which changed three {{lang}} instances including from the first of the following to the second.
Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раско́л), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".
Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раскол), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".

Should the article show how to spell a word (раскол) or how to pronounce it (раско́л)? According to comments above, Russian dictionaries etc. (and ruwiki) show the pronunciation for a word. The ruwiki equivalent of Old Believers in the example above is ru:Старообрядчество and it seems to use the example word without stress marks. @Kwamikagami: I've seen you working on things like this; do you have an opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The ruwiki equivalent of Old Believers in the example above is ru:Старообрядчество and it seems to use the example word without stress marks. -- Have a better look: the Russian word does have stress marks, and so does the second Russian term: "Старообря́дчество" and "Древлеправосла́вие". Anyway, even if some Russian pages don't have stress marks in the entry word, that's because nobody bothered to put them, not because they are not necessary on ruwiki. P.S. Note that both Russian terms are a mile long, so it would be virtually impossible for a foreigner to tell where the (main) stress falls. – Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I edited Mike Novikoff's essay on stresses to make it more neutral. I removed the irrelevant info and added both points of view. Everyone is welcome to leave their constructive comments and suggestions on the essay's talk page. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
When I search the wikitext of ru:Старообрядчество for the word "раскол" I get 10 hits (there are 39 hits for the text including not as a whole word). However, there are no occurrences of "раско́л". If you see something different, perhaps you could quote a few words so others can see it. That seems to support my above summary, namely that "раскол" is used to spell the word while "раско́л" is used to pronounce it. Do you disagree? Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I was talking about the word "Старообрядчество". It is stressed in the lead, the first time it appears, in bold: "Старообря́дчество, или Древлеправосла́вие, — совокупность религиозных течений". No other words (including "раскол") in the article are obviously stressed, since the stress is only placed upon the entry word(s) and only once. No disagreement as to the spelling vs. pronunciation; the intention of the stress mark is to help with the pronunciation, that's correct. P.S. Just to clarify: Both spellings (stressed and non-stressed) are technically correct, so I wouldn't oppose the spelling to the pronunciation (if that is your intention). Stresses can be (and are) used, but only in certain texts. Please read the new version of the essay: Wikipedia:Stress_marks_in_Russian_words for more explanations. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
"раскол" is used to spell the word while "раско́л" is used to pronounce it – the short and simple answer is yes. — Mike Novikoff 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not true. Didn't I ask you on your talk page not to mislead non-Russian users? To show pronunciation in Russian, one obviously uses phonetic transcription, while the placement of a stress mark helps with the pronunciation (to pronounce a word in Russian, you basically only need to know where the stress falls). And one can't claim that a stressed word is not a valid spelling or something. Any spelling is used to spell, that's kind of obvious. I already explained all this stuff slightly above, anyway. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be just playing with words. Your "helpful" variant exists solely for the pronunciation, and it's a special one, not the regular. — Mike Novikoff 09:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm not "playing with words". A stress mark helps with the pronunciation but doesn't constitute a pronunciation as such. That would be the IPA or the Cyrillic phonetic transcription or something similar. A sign on an office door stating one's name, e.g., "John Smith", doesn't mean that this sign is actually John Smith. It only means that the office belongs to John Smith. Same thing with the stress. Anyway, both spellings are valid and correct; whether they are special or regular, that's a different question. P.S. In a nutshell: A stress mark shows the phonetic stress, nothing more. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Phonetic. — Mike Novikoff 10:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That's what I said. And I doubt that a foreigner with very little knowledge of the Russian spelling who sees, for instance, металлообраба́тывающая ("only" 11 syllables) would be able to pronounce it, even if the word comes with a stress mark. So you cannot quite tell that the above spelling shows one how to pronounce the word in question. You'll need a proper transcription for that. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Of course stress marks are phonetic (so they are about pronunciation), and of course IPA is much better. — Mike Novikoff 11:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Ruwiki is a very poor example since it never had a guideline nor even a consensus on these stress marks. The only thing that can be told for sure is that they never include them in article titles. The rest is chaotic: someone "bothers to put them" in leads just because they feel they should, and then gets very surprised to learn that there is no such requirement. — Mike Novikoff 14:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Those who remove stresses on ruwiki also get quite astonished when they are told that removing the stresses that were already placed "is not welcomed", to put it mildly. Adding stresses on ruwiki is OK, while removing them, not so much.
  • They never include them in article titles. — That would have been preposterous indeed. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a single repetition of the word in accented Cyrillic, with a footnote to explain that the stress marks have been added for the benefit of the reader, and aren't normally found in print?

My opinion is that we should make WP as useful as possible. That's the general criterion I try to follow when deciding on things like this. And the accent marks are undeniably useful. Russian stress is unpredictable. Even disyllabic grammatical words include minimal pairs that differ by the position of the stress. (Not long ago I had to ask a native speaker about such a word, because it fit two dictionary entries and without stress marking I couldn't tell which.) But Russian orthography is otherwise close to phonemic. So if you are even slightly familiar with Russian, you can read it, as long as someone tells you where the stress lies. Without the stress assignment, you won't know how to pronounce the vowels, because they change drastically depending on stress. (E.g. unstressed a and o are pronounced the same, as are e and i.)

As for the contrary argument, that accent marks will confuse readers who don't know Cyrillic, I wonder why they'd be using Cyrillic in the first place. The situation is very much like English technical dictionaries, that mark stressed syllables and expect you to be able to pronounce Latinate words once that is given. Like Russian, English Latinate orthography is close to phonemic apart from stress. And I suppose that because of that convention, some people might conclude that English orthography includes an acute accent mark, but I would expect readers to educate themselves when they come across something new. There's only so far we can dumb things down.

Another parallel is vowel marking in Arabic and Hebrew, which is similarly useful in making written words pronounceable to L2 speakers but is otherwise only used for children and dictionaries.

I support stress marking in the Cyrillic, but would reluctantly accept removing it if the remover added the IPA to compensate, just as I would for English technical vocabulary. (I would prefer to keep the stress marking, in both Russian and English, and add the IPA as an additional key.) Or, as proposed above, have parallel Cyrillic with and without stress marking, parallel Arabic and Hebrew with and without vowel marking, etc.

The problem is Cruft. (Click if you dare.)

The problem with these other solutions is cruft — they can lead to a ridiculous delay before you get to the topic the article is supposed to be about. And they tend to bloat over time. In a dictionary, you can skip the pronunciation, orthography and etymology sections if you're not interested and go directly to the definition. On WP they're all glommed together. I find it annoying to start the lead, and encounter a paragraph of detail about the keyword that has nothing to do with the subject. Repeating the keyword once in Cyrillic/Arabic/Hebrew/Devanagari/IPA is easy enough to skip, while being highly informative — that is, if we keep it short, there's a high ratio of utility to inconvenience. Repeat it two or three times, for Cyrillic with and without stress, or Arabic with and without vowels, or English with both IPA and respelling (or stress marks and IPA), and the utility ratio starts shifting the other way. I'd prefer a single repetition that covers orthography + pronunciation, and supply further detail if needed in a footnote.

— kwami (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Maybe a single repetition of the word in accented Cyrillic, with a footnote to explain that the stress marks have been added for the benefit of the reader, and aren't normally found in print? — Adding an explanatory note is an excellent solution in my opinion. I actually proposed it in this discussion already, and some users agreed with it. Just to clarify: we better only include the stressed word(s); the version without stresses would be redundant and confusing. Thanks.
  • Both the IPA and the stress(es) can be kept, sure enough. If you have a car (IPA), it doesn't mean you are forbidden to walk (stress).
  • Thanks for the information on stresses in English words; very useful and revealing. It looks like it's not "madness [sic] done by those who just don't know what they're doing", after all.
  • Your other arguments and suggestions look very good to me. (I won't list them and won't comment on them so as to keep this discussion short.) Thanks much. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
English technical dictionaries, that mark stressed syllables – Can you please name a few? I think I've seen some in my life, namely FOLDOC and The Jargon File, and they don't mangle the words with accents. The latter does this at most. — Mike Novikoff 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I ... would reluctantly accept removing it if the remover added the IPA to compensate – That could be a feasible compromise, if we don't reach anything else. Another user had already suggested it: stress marks should not be used if IPA is present or added. It would also be in line with MOS:REDUNDANCY that says "keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence". (Most articles that I care about have the IPA already.) — Mike Novikoff 05:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This would actually be no compromise at all, not on your part at any rate. This is something you have been claiming here for months if not years and which you mentioned in your essay: no stresses, including when we have no IPA. No, just nyet. The stresses should stay whether we have the IPA or not. There's no harm in using them. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The dramatic track five of Battleship Potemkin. :-)
No matter what I've been claiming, I'm now ready to agree on something different. — Mike Novikoff 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A stressed spelling would only be redundant if we indicated it along with a non-stressed one (раскол, раско́л), so that's really a non-issue. We do use respelling H:RESPELL for English words, after all, and nobody claims it's redundant. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Another possible solution: Stressed vowels can be emphasized in some different way, e.g., by using bold: "Александр Сергеевич Пушкин" ("Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin"). Aamof, some Russian dictionaries underline stressed vowels, but, as far as I know, it is not recommended to use underlining on wiki. P.S. @SMcCandlish, Moscow Connection, Nicoljaus, Johnuniq, and Kwamikagami: What do you think? — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Acute accents are the standard convention for marking stress in Russian, and I see no reason not to follow it.
I don't care for emphasis by formatting. It's not stable, for one thing -- someone might want to copy these names into their own work, and the stress would be lost. It's easy enough to remove the stress marks if they want to, since they're combining diacritics and all they have to do is hit backspace.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have one person who wants to change consensus, and everyone else keeping to the existing consensus? He's brought it up, didn't get any support, so he needs to follow consensus. He can continue to campaign for a change, of course, but meanwhile the current consensus is valid. It's not really up to us to convince him, but up to him to convince us. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You couldn't be more correct as far as that user's behavior is concerned. I also agree with your arguments regarding the use of accents vs. the formatting. Stresses are much more stable and common, indeed. I just tried to find a solution which would please every user, including the person you have just mentioned, but it appears that nothing would ever please him other than his own solution. Thanks. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Are we discussing my behavior? And can you please stop flooding? — Mike Novikoff 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Novikoff, please choose your words. I'm not "flooding", just explaining things. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: What "consensus" you are talking about? There hadn't been one so far, not even in ruwiki. I do have some support already, and the discussion is far from being over. BTW, you didn't answer my question above. — Mike Novikoff 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The consensus is that we've been doing this for 20 years without a problem.
As for English tech dictionaries marking stress, sorry, I never bothered to keep track. Too trivial to think twice about. You could probably find something as easily as I could.
I do remember seeing this in guides to Roman and Greek names, both historical and mythological, where the only guide to English pronunciation was an acute accent. I believe there are two reasons for doing that: (a) there are different traditions for how to pronounce Classical names in English, and it would create a mess to try to give them all, while upsetting people if the editor took sides, and (b) those pronunciations are generally predictable as long as the placement of the stress is known, so there's no need to give the pronunciation beyond that. The latter is exactly our situation with Russian. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Novikoff, please stop misleading people. Other users and I have already commented on the alleged lack of a consensus on ruwiki. This is what I wrote: Those who remove stresses on ruwiki get quite astonished when they are told that removing the stresses that were already placed "is not welcomed", to put it mildly. Adding stresses on ruwiki is OK, while removing them, not so much. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
OMG, what a chaos. :(( You may repeat everything you've said some more times, in all possible threads, then it certainly becomes more convincing. :\ — Mike Novikoff 08:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see WP:CIVIL: Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages. — One way or another, even if I repeated a couple of my arguments, I only did so because this thread is very long and people might fail to notice them. Another reason for doing so is to rule out any possible misunderstanding; the fact is that some users tend to make clearly misleading arguments, which is not OK. P.S. I already asked you in this thread you to be civil, several times, but you keep ignoring my warnings. Should I ask an admin to intervene? — Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
In Hebrew Niqqud, e.g., vowel marking, is normal in, e.g., dictionaries, grammar texts, but is rare in, e.g., news, nonlinguistic texts. Would it be appropriate to make a similar distinction for stress marks? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Chatul: I'm all for it. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Mike Novikoff 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that it was. Wikipedia is, however, a collection of articles on diverse subjects, some of them on aspects of linguistics for which stress and vowel markings are appropriate. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Should a translation show its pronunciation?

Would someone not involved in the dispute please offer an opinion on my question at 02:38, 31 January 2021 above. Rephrased, that question concerns Old Believers which concerns a schism between groups with different religious beliefs. After defining "Old Believers" and giving its Russian equivalents, the lead says:

Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раскол), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".

My question: should the translation of schism show how to spell the word (раскол) or how to pronounce it (раско́л)? It is conventional for pronunciation to follow the lead words that mirror the article title, as done at Raskol. However, that does not apply to schism. The MOS at this subpage includes "Normally, pronunciation is given only for the subject of the article in its lead section." That suggests the Russian word for raskol (раскол) would not indicate pronunciation. The counter view is that stress marks for pronunciation are useful for the reader. Does MOS have guidance on this? What should happen—an RfC? Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from the involved users
I'm very sorry to intervene, but as far as I understand, pronunciation is this: 1) pronounced [rɐˈskoɫ] or 2) /ˈvɛnɪs/ VEH-niss. As to the stress mark in Russian words, it only shows where the phonetic stress is to be placed, nothing more. A stress mark helps with the pronunciation (basically, it's the only thing you need to know to pronounce a Russian word), but a stressed word doesn't constitute a pronunciation as such. That would be the IPA. The Russians have their own phonetic transcription which uses Cyrillic symbols: 1) [рʌско́л] or 2) /трʌнскр'и́пцыэjъ/ (IPA: /trɐnskrʲˈipt͡sᵻjə/). See Russian Phonetic Transcription Translator and Pronunciation Dictionary or Orphoepic dictionary (in Russian). On the second site, just type the Russian word in and click the first button on the left (ПОИСК = search).
For "raskol", the second site says: Транскрипция слова «раско́л»: [рʌско́л]. Translation: Transcription of the word «раско́л»: [рʌско́л]. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Any comment on this? There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what pronunciation is. (I'll take all the blame for calling an involved user, lol.) — Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The pronunciation is already there in the article linked to. But personally I think it would be nice to show where the stress is here too, so readers won't need to follow a link to know what sound should be in their heads when they read this article. Many readers won't and might end up hearing it as "rascal", so I'd add an acute accent. But since we're giving a transliteration, it might be better to put the accent mark there instead: raskól (раскол). But that's just a suggestion. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I noticed that the Venice article includes both the IPA and the "pronunciation respelling key" (H:RESPELL), so it looks like it's not really forbidden to use both the IPA and other pronunciation keys (that would be a stress mark in Russian words). Therefore, the argument "No stresses, only IPA!" is void. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder what would happen if someone started removing respelling from all the articles, arguing that this stuff "is not part of the regular English orthography", "doesn't represent the common spelling", "there's no consensus to use it", "it's madness done by those who just don't know what they're doing", etc. etc. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's such an obscure situation, to a general English-speaking reader, that it is not possible to resolve this by adopting some standard style for Wikipedia (and bearing in mind that readers hardly ever read the Wikimedia Manual of Style). So it would be necessary to indicate one of the symbol sequences is the word in Cyrillic script, and one of the symbol sequences is a pronunciation (and indicate which system of pronunciation symbols was used). Jc3s5h (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments from the involved users
@Jc3s5h: I'm compelled to intervene once again and repeat that "раско́л" is not a pronunciation but a word. Please read my explanations in the collapsed section above. This looks like a case of misinterpretation on Johnuniq's (and apparently your) part. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Misinterpretations all around! Can we just let the uninvolved users talk without us? That's what this section is apparently created for. Without you and me, in particular. — Mike Novikoff 20:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Like I said in the edit history, I'm not commenting on the MoS as such here, just clearing up an obvious misunderstanding. Oh well, I hope the two above users saw my explanations. P.S. Also, I didn't notice that your comment was there, so you really need to calm down. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Certainly you are doing The Most Important Thing Possible, which is above anything. — Mike Novikoff 22:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yevgeny Petrosyan — Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC?

@Johnuniq: This topic is going to be archived without any decision in a couple of days, and it worries me much. One of my opponents once said that he just wants to stop me, and exactly that is going to happen. (That's what ruwiki is infamous for, and that's why their content is always so poor: they have a rule to discuss almost everything, as an amendment to the fundamental WP:BOLD, and then they do bludgeoning or even a filibuster). I still deeply believe that every Russian term should be shown in its common spelling reflected in RS, yet I'm now prone to be accused of not having a consensus for such edits, so I'll probably cease to edit (and perhaps to even read) any articles containing my native language altogether, to save me a trouble. Which would be much pity indeed. And the articles would inconsistently have one kind of spelling or the other. Can we somehow arrange a wider discussion to reach any determined conclusion? — Mike Novikoff 05:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff: The "stop me" diff does not necessarily mean to stop you—it can be read another way, namely that the editor disagrees with edits which remove stress marks, and wants to stop that removal. Re the issue, I naively imagined that my question at #Should a translation show its pronunciation? above would get a clear answer from uninvolved MOS addicts who are normally very resilient and able to make themselves heard over bickering. However, the uninvolved replies have been very hesitant and I think the only outcome would be that there is no consensus to systematically add or remove stress marks. If you want to start an RfC, I suggest a new section where you focus on the issue to be discussed and minimize mention of past discussions (adding an RfC to this section would be very unlikely to get a reasonable response due to the lengthy and convoluted debate). I would suggest including three diffs with example edits where the question would be whether the edit is helpful. From the response so far, I would guess that removing stress marks is not going to get consensus. That might change if some source were available that supported removal. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Having mulled this over for a while, my conclusions are that:

  • WP (en.WP, anyway) should just use normal Cyrillic language and markup, since this is what we do for all other langauges, and is what the majority of reliable sources do (both in Russian and in English when writing about Russian). To the extent children's and other learners' works use the pronunciation markup, WP has no reason to care, because those are categorically unreliable sources (see WP:CHILDRENSLIT, WP:TERTIARYUSE).
  • To indicate pronunciation where this is actually important (mostly in the lead of an article on a Russian subject, in linguistic material when comparing phonetics between dialects, etc.), use IPA markup (see {{IPA-ru}}). For sight-impaired readers, one of the purposes of {{lang|ru}} and {{lang|ru-Latn}} is triggering screen-reader software to switch to a pronunciation appropriate to the language in question instead of trying to parse it with default English phonetics (and in this we're dependent on the makers of the screen readers doing a good job of this; I know of no evidence that these marks would help them do it better, and it might actually confuse them).
  • Our own article at Stress (linguistics)#Znaki udareniya says it all: "In general [Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian] texts, stress marks are rare, typically used either when required for disambiguation of homographs (compare в больши́х количествах 'in great quantities', and в бо́льших количествах 'in greater quantities'), or in rare words and names that are likely to be mispronounced. Materials for foreign learners may have stress marks throughout the text."
  • For any unusual case in which the pronunciation marks are provably the overwhelmingly preferred version in reliable sources with regard to a particular subject (e.g., maybe a Russian singer insists on spelling her name with them, or whatever), then we would use that version in that case; this is already covered by MOS:DIACRITICS, MOS:TM, etc.
  • So, I don't think that any rule needs to change (there is no contradiction or other error in the guidelines), nor that efforts to force en.WP to use the spellings (in Cyrillic or in Latin-alphabet tranliterations) that have pronunciation marks as a general matter are defensible. Their pedagogical nature is at odds with WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK.
  • That said, I have no particular objection to the guidelines being updated to say that we by default do not use these marks. It's really pretty close to the opposite of Vietnamese, which kinda-sorta can be written without the language's tone marks, at least for common terms like pho, but which usually is not in RS, so we do usually include the tone marks. It's a regular feature of that language, not a tack-on for learners like these Russian marks are. Znaki udareniya are even more directly parallel to Japanese and Korean "ruby" markup, which WP has debated and decided against using, in general. The language at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby is a good model: "Do not use the <ruby> tag to further annotate the kanji with ruby characters, except in articles about ruby characters themselves, or where they are needed to accurately quote something that includes ruby characters." Something like this could be added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Russia-related articles#Orthography. While that is just a draft guideline, it's a good place to put it.
  • If we wanted to add this stuff to the main MoS, I would suggest putting a combined line-item about both ruby and the Russian markup, and anything similar (so we don't have to do it again when some dispute breaks out about Elbonian or Kerblachistinian orthography), at MOS:FOREIGN. Maybe something like this, just after the material about diacritics:

    Do not use auxiliary, pedagogical diacritics (including Russian, Ukranian, and Belarusian znaki udareniya stress marks, Tagalog tuldik, and Indonesian "dictionary é"), nor other auxiliary spelling or pronunciation devices (including Japanese and Korean "ruby" characters), except: where they are needed to accurately quote something that contains them; where they are used (e.g. for disambiguation of homographs) in the predominant spelling of a particular term or name in reliable sources other than pedagogical material; or in content that is about these symbols themselves. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation for how and where to provide pronunciation guidance with standardized templates.)

    This would be consistent with actual practice, in agreement with (though more precisely worded than) other guidelines, and compliant with policy like WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK and WP:NOTDICT (the equivalents of which ru.Wikipedia clearly lacks).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC); wording revised based on input below: 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC); clarified again after more input: 16:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis which I imagine Mike Novikoff would want to see. @Mike Novikoff: The above is currently just an opinion and I would not use it to purge pronunciations just yet. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish and Johnuniq:
Indeed, I'm really glad to see the thorough analysis by SMcCandlish, that's what I've hoped for. And I strongly support his proposed addition to the MoS. Of course I'll wait until it's established, I don't start to edit the articles just yet, but I hope we don't lose our efforts all in vain. I suggest that it would be added to the MoS within a month starting from today (that is, before the topic is archived), unless someone presents some really strong arguments to the contrary. — Mike Novikoff 23:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Since this is basically rooted directly in WP:NOTDICT policy, we needn't wait that long, especially given how long this thread's been open. I proposed this on 21 March, so 21 April is fine as a target date. RfCs and other proposals generally run for 1 month (aside from RMs, which are a week unless relisted, and various XfDs are also more like a week). I'll "advertise" this thread in a few relevant places.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a comment on the above wording: the expression "optional stress marks (including Japanese and Korean Ruby..." is extremely odd. So-called Ruby has nothing to do with stress, and is typographically completely different from stress indications, so I do not think it should be included in this way. I agree with both recommendations, by the way: not to use Ruby except in exceptional circumstances (because it is typographically incompatible with English), and not to show stress marks in (e.g.) Russian where they are not part of the normal writing of the word, even though personally I find it easier to read the Cyrillic stress indications than the IPA ones. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
We have {{Respell}} for providing simpler-than-IPA pronunciation guides that include stress indication. Since we already have two ways to indicate this, we have no reason to "pollute" the actual words/names in running text with additional stress indicators.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose removal of pronunciation from what is supposed to be a pronunciation. Why not just use Cyrillic without Latin? Or Latin without Cyrillic? NOTADICT is not the issue: if we were anal about that, we couldn't have any guide to pronunciation of any word on WP. The point of having Cyrillic is so that readers can search for the name/word in its original form, and the purpose of the Latin/stress marks is so that they know how to pronounce it.

Maybe we could amend the MOS with the following:

When recording an audio version of a Wikipedia article, you cannot give the pronunciation of foreign words, because that's a violation of NOTADICT. Instead, just say "gobbledegook".

— kwami (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, I think you've misunderstood this discussion and proposal. This isn't about removing stress indicators from pronunciations; if you use {{IPA-ru}} and/or {{Respell}}, they would still indicate stress (similarly, we also have {{Ruby}} for circumstances in which its use is actually sensible in an encyclopedia). What this is about: not changing the spelling of a name or other word when used normally. I.e., it's about not doing the Russian or Japanese equivalent of changing impeller to im·PEL·ler at first occurrence (much less later ones). Even most major dictionaries don't do this sort of thing, and save stress and syllabification information for the pronunciation guide that comes elsewhere in the definition (i.e., in their equivalent of an article).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: So, basically, instead of
Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Ле́в Никола́евич Толсто́й),
we would have
Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой, Lév Nikoláyevich Tolstóy)?
That's a lot of clutter, but I suppose as long as we don't force people to use {{IPA-ru}} in order to indicate basic pronunciation (and thus delete pronunciations anywhere that doesn't have IPA), that would work for me. — kwami (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I still don't think you're following this. Maybe just start from the top and re-read the discussion. There is no reason to include {{transl|ru|Lév Nikoláyevich Tolstóy}} there. This proposal does not seek to add additional such clutter, which is very redundant. If it is thought that stress and syllabification information is needed here, it would be done with {{IPA-ru}}, {{Respell}} or both, but we usually do not do this with well-known names. Trying to do it with acute accents is pointless because no one but people who are Russian learners (or teachers) is going to understand what they signify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support SMcCandlish's proposal, but replace "stress marks" with "diacritics and auxilliary spellings" per Imaginatorium's comment. The native spelling should reflect the common spelling, without auxilliary diacritics which are only used in limited contexts. Although some systems are self-explanatory (like the znaki udareniya), many are not (like the tuldik); further, it might create the misledaing impression that these are commonly used spelling devices. If we want to indicate stress or more details about pronunciation, we have IPA for that purpose. Austronesier (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier and Imaginatorium: We couldn't use wording quite that vague; there is long-established consensus that WP does in fact use diacritics when RS tell us they belong there (it's fiancée not fiancee, even if the latter dumbed-down spelling can be found in some sources). We've had debate after debate about this for 20 years and the answer is always the same. Consensus is not going to change on that. But the point about "stress marks" being insufficient to cover Ruby is on-point. I've revised the proposed wording above to try to address this. I'm not entirely sure "auxiliary spellings" is the perfect term for Ruby marks, either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Sure, I didn't want to trade one inaccuracy for another. What about this: Do not use auxilliary/pedagogical diacritics (including stress marks such as Russian, Ukranian, and Belarusian znaki udareniya diacritics) and other auxilliary/pedagogical spelling devices (such as Japanese and Korean "ruby" characters) which are not part of the common spelling.... My point is that auxilliary diacritics (thus not the one in fiancée) can indicate more than stress in various languages. This includes the Tagalog tuldik mentioned above (which is never used in common writing unless for rare disambiguation purposes), or Indonesian é as a dictionary-only device for disambiguating front /e/ from central /ə/; in common spelling both are just ⟨e⟩. –Austronesier (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at, but your version is saying the same thing several times. I'll try to revise to integrate some of this, though, including those other specifics. See what you think of the version up there now. Also may address Kwamikagami's concerns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Looks good now (referring to this version)! –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Limited support I can only speak to Ukrainian—stress marks are almost always included in leads on Ukrainian wiki and from what i gather reading this discussion are more commonly used than in Russian. I support the suggested inclusion of stress marks on Ukrainian words—blindlynx (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But why should the practice in the lede in Ukrainian WP matter? Our readers need in the first place the spelling they're going to encounter in books and online media, and any other kind of natural text material. The capital of Ukraine is Київ, not Ки́їв. The stress sign is a tool, but not part of the actual spelling. It's not even "optional": what will happen in real life if a journalist submits a news report complete with stress marks on every polysyllabic word? The editor will tell them to resubmit, but certainly not leave it as is. Austronesier (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
My point is that stress marks are reasonably common in Ukrainian particularly in educational or reference texts—such as encyclopedias—I was using wiki as an example. The cases where we would include words in Ukrainian on this wiki are more or less the same cases as would include stress marks in Ukrainian. I doubt that anyone copying single words from wiki will be capable of generating anything coherent.—blindlynx (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Here we go again: some special "educational" language instead of the real one. Anyone copying single words from wiki can at least search for them, and most search utilities by default will only find a literal match. — Mike Novikoff 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Blindlynx Please read the discussion above this (and the proposal). There is no "suggested inclusion" of stress diacritics for Ukrainian words here, but the opposite. The entire reason this discussion and proposal are open is that we already know that uk.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia regularly use these pedagogical spellings, and that this does not match en.Wikipedia practice, because our policies are different and the practices built on them are different. This is not a discussion about making a sweeping change to en.WP practice to agree with ru.WP and uk.WP practice (which is not going to happen). It is about how to codify in MoS the fact that our practice is different and that we do not do what ru.WP and uk.WP do (because they lack close equivalents of en:WP:NOTDICT and en:WP:NOT#GUIDE policies). And yes, the marks are entirely optional, by definition, as they are not part of the name. Syllabic stress information belongs in the pronunciation guide, which is a different part of the lead sentence. It does not belong jammed into the name itself (much less over and over again, and across multiple pages).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support I strongly agree with SMcCandlish's analysis and proposal. Thank you very much. Retimuko (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Remove stress marks in most contexts. Especially in articles’ first lines, where a reader might select and copy text. I do like these stress marks in Ukrainian and Russian dictionaries and glossaries. But syllabic stress is common to many languages, so we should use a universal coordinated method (currently, IPA) to convey this information in this comprehensive encyclopedia, and not start introducing overly-specific foreign conventions in contexts where they are not explained. This is potentially confusing and misleading. Maybe they can be useful in a domain-specific glossary where there is a prominent detailed explanation, but I doubt that would be better for our readers than using IPA. If we should embrace these, then create a guideline on exactly where and how to use them. —Michael Z. 23:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've requested a closure at WP:ANRFC. This has been open for over 100 days.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure comments

I disagree that WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:DIACRITICS are sufficient to tackle the kind of disruption that has led to this RfC. Both policies cannot be applied to the cases we have discussed here.

  • WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles; however, the discussion was about additional material in the lede that follows the first mention of the article title.
  • MOS:DIACRITICS is about usage in English; the objective of adding spellings in foreign languages/scripts is to inform our readers about how the lemma is natively spelled. The two schools of thought are: 1) use the spelling that is commonly used in writing regular text in the concerned language; 2) use the spelling which is used in that language to write an entry in similar formats as WP, e.g. encyclopedias or dictionaries (which may contain diacritics not used in other contexts).

Both policies are English-based; the problematic lede text material by its very nature falls out of these policies. –Austronesier (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to make a couple of notes regarding the present closure. It admits that there is a consensus to remove the stress marks, and I'm going to continue doing it now, finally after a long wait. However, even though the opponents are few, sometimes they are really aggressive and disruptive, so I'll definitely have to link to something in the summaries of my edits. And it would better be a paragraph of MoS than the whole discussion – it would be simply easier to read, if nothing else. And most frankly, as Bulgakov's character from Heart of a Dog, Prof. Preobrazhensky, had put it: "I don't care who issues it, when they issue it or what they issue, provided it's the sort of certificate which will mean that neither Shvonder nor anyone else can so much as knock on my door. The ultimate in certificates. Effective. Real. Armour-plated! I don't even want my name on it. The end."
Another concern is that the good-faith newbie editors will have no way of knowing whether to put or remove these stress marks unless we codify the rule properly, so we eventually have to do it anyway. — Mike Novikoff 16:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Zero Article should apply to all nouns with categorising letters and numbers in article ledes and article prose

Mardus has been warned to stop flogging Dead Horse 1, and has agreed on his talk to step back from it; nobody agrees that this is a thing, there's no need for this thread to remain open. GirthSummit (blether) 16:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The Advanced Article Usage in English PDF at the John Richard Allison Library at Regent College has it, that:

There is no article before a noun followed by a categorizing letter or number.

Unfortunately, due to the paucity of clear and unambiguous rules, the definite article has incorrectly been pushed to places where it is not required across the entire Wikipedia: "the iPhone 5", for example, and one editor not native to the English language pushing "the GAZ-24". In these and other cases, the definite article should be omitted, because it's not even part of these names.

I'm fine with:

  • "the iPhone", because the letter i has been prepended to the generic word phone.
  • It's the same as "the Windows Store", or "the Apple App Store", and "the Google Play Store" in prose.

Whereas in a lede, the definite article ought to be omitted on the basis of Windows Store used as a proper name:

Windows Store is the name of an app store ...

In prose,

at the Windows Store

is correct, because there are many stores, Windows is the property of Store, and Store is a generic word.

I'm also okay with:

  • "the iPhone SE smartphone", as the definite article is linked to the word smartphone.
  • "the SE", "the 8088", as it mentions the categorising letter or number that represents a particular model, and when it's been established, that the narration in the case of the SE is about an iPhone SE phone, or the Intel 8088 CPU.

Many editors rely on "the other articles do it, too", and "the trade press does this, too", "it's descriptive, and you're prescriptive," which arguments are all wrong. And then these editors put the incorrect application of the definite article on Wikipedia, on which millions of native and non-native speakers of the English language rely for correct English grammar, but then readers get it wrong, because of the widespread ignorance of Zero Article rules, and because of the widespread incorrect application of the definite article, and on Wikipedia.

There's additional discussion about all this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). -Mardus /talk 08:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is definite overreach. The source says: "There is no article before a noun followed by a categorizing letter or number. (i.e. Finish reading section B and then do exercise 2.)" This is natural and obvious, but the 5 in the iPhone 5 is not this sort of "categorising letter or number". If you have a row of these thingies for in-office use, and they are marked with clear identifying numbers, then "IPhone 6 is for the janitor" is correct, because this 6 identifies this particular iPhone. Oh, and words starting a sentence get a capital letter. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
5 is very much a categorising letter or number, just as SE in iPhone SE. -Mardus /talk 16:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe your suggestion "Windows Store is the name of an app store ..." is inappropriate, based on WP:REFERS – a typical Wikipedia article is about the actual thing rather than the phrase, so it should not put the focus on the phrase. --116.86.4.41 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
A couple of editors have tried to explain this difference to Mardus, at the Naming conventions talk page and also at GAZ-24. I like that Mardus thinks their grammar better than the New York Times: The iPhone 5 Scores Well, With a Quibble. Not sure what to do with their edits.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This proposal is definitely misguided. Here are just a few examples of mainstream media using the definite article with "iPhone X":
This is totally standard English usage, and I'm surprised that any native English speaker would question it. CodeTalker (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, for sure. Actually I do not believe anyone aside from Mardus has questioned it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The cited articles and both Wikipedia form a negative feedback loop with regard to the definite article: 'It's in the articles,' say many Wikipedia editors, and 'its on Wikipedia, say the article authors,' and both conclude, based on one another's mistaken assumptions, that 'it must be therefore right'.
For example, Apple's own advertising for Apple II correctly omits the definite article from before Apple II, because the people who wrote the copy, were well aware of Zero Article, and where not to put the definite article.
So far, I've had responses from Mr. Poppers, who is not a native speaker of the English language, then a redlink editor, and then an IP editor.-Mardus /talk 17:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree that "5 is very much a categorising number". Apple is free to name their phones whatever they like, the next one could be the "iPhone Gold" or the "iPhone 22". It is essentially a coincidence that these models are currently named in a sequence. Primergrey (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The model name in any product also falls under 'categorising letter or number'. We do not call Windows Vista "the Windows Vista" for the same reasons. In addition, these are proper names, and are therefore definite in and of themselves. Furthermore, the definite article in the cases that I've brought up, is never part of a product's name, unless it's The New York Times or The Washington Post. It's not because 'Apple are free to name its products whatever they like', but because Apple follows correct grammar from the outset. -Mardus /talk 17:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • My additional argument is, that iPhone 5, being a proper noun, is a general and uncountable noun in English, which is why Zero Article applies. -Mardus /talk 17:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Your argument is far too simplistic; the idea that all proper nouns take zero article is simply wrong. Have I got your theory right? Is it that we should say "the Morris Minor" because it doesn't have a number, but "Austin 7" because it does? If so, you are simply out of touch with reality. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Morris Minor and Austin 7 are both proper names; therefore, Zero Article applies. Otherwise: the Morris Minor vehicle, or the Austin 7 car. Note, how the definite article relates to both the words vehicle and car. In the Morris Minor, the definite article makes it look like a minor (a child) with the name Morris. On omitting the definite article (given Minor), it's easy to deduce, that we're not talking about someone, but something. -Mardus /talk 19:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This is the worst kind of prescriptivism. Even if it were a correct interpretation of the linked grammatical guidance (which it's not) it's awkward and unnatural and doesn't match how speakers and writers actually use the language. pburka (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Mardus, are you even a native speaker of English? Because your proposals come off to me as very unidiomatic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    Per his user page, Mardus is a native speaker of Estonian, not English. BilCat (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) How many other English language style guides recommend this usage? If this isn't a common recommendation, then we can ignore it. The whole argument is far to prescriptive anyway, and most native English users who've commented here seem to be against this, and have provided examples of this. WP:SHIPS has a guideline that an article isn't to be used with ship names, but this has also been controversial, and is contraindicated by popular usage. BilCat (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think that there is any merit in this proposal. It seems to be based on a misreading of a rather small point in that PDF: its broader application as proposed here is entirely inappropriate. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I wish obscure little colleges would stop publishing their own style manuals. EEng 22:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    I wish people who aren't native speakers of a language would stop using obscure little colleges' style manuals to try to argue what counts as idiomatic. —valereee (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Mardus, are you STILL going on about this? Geez. I don't know where you are getting your concepts of proper usage of articles in English from, but either A) they aren't correct in the first place or B) you don't properly understand them. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Computer commands failed proposal

Template:Manual of Style, under Science, links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Command-line examples, which redirects to the subsection Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal)#Command-line examples. Shouldn't the Manual of Style bottom navigation template not link to a failed proposal? I'm 90% sure this is a mistake but I just wanted to make sure. Leijurv (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: Yes, I'd agree that's undesirable. It looks like the issue is that @SMcCandlish: moved the entirety of what was MOS:COMPUTING to that failed-proposal page, back in November. In the wake of that move, the entry should be removed from the navbox. I'll do that now. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done I looked through the "What links here?" for that redirect as well. Most of the listed pages were in either a Talk namespace or the Wikipedia namespace. I did scrub a few links from template documentation, a disambiguation page, and a couple of project pages. It's also worth noting that MOS:CS is still in place, and has some relevant style guidelines that overlap with the topics MOS:COMPUTING covered. (Though, it also referenced MOS:COMPUTING, and was one of the pages I scrubbed of links to that now-defunct guideline. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks; I figured there would probably be some kind of cleanup to do after MOS:COMPUTING basically failed the WP:PROPOSAL process. I couldn't even convince the regulars at WT:MOSCOMPSCI to adopt any parts of it that weren't the controversial ones. Basically, hardly anyone thought MOS:COMP was guideline-worthy in any part.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Chinese simplified and traditional

User:Kanna930 has been adding traditional Chinese characters to a number of articles, some of which are directly relating to China but some that are not. For instance, at Toyota Corolla (E210) they changed a segment to the following hard-to-swallow cud of text:

In November 2020, the long-wheelbase derivatives were revealed as the Allion (simplified Chinese: 亚洲狮; traditional Chinese: 亞洲獅; pinyin: Yàzhōushī; lit. 'Asian Lion', originally "傲澜" (pinyin: Àolán); changed due to the latter name may sound offensive to Teochew dialect speakers) and the Levin GT (Chinese: 凌尚; pinyin: Língshàng)

To me, having two kinds of Chinese script as well as pinyin (and sometimes translations) for every Chinese name used for a car is redundant, and as far as I can tell, most cars manufactured in China (excepting Taiwan) stick to simplified. Is there a rule to apply for these kinds of situations? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why an article about a Toyota Corolla would include any Chinese names at all.. Toyota is a Japanese company. If any language other than English were to be included, should it not be Japanese? As for Chinese articles, though: I agree that having all three in the article prose is clunky as all hell, but it seems to me there's tended to be endless warring over traditional vs simplified Chinese, so that including both is the only way to appease all camps. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. If the name is of Chinese derivation, and that's somehow worth noting, that can be addressed in the body of the article. EEng 03:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
In this case, the words above appear to be in a section of the article on the China market here, so a heavy dose of Chinese is probably appropriate in that section. Chinese characters outside that section are arguably less desirable. Chumpih. (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I was editing drunk. Ignore me. EEng 07:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Sir/Madam, you shall be saluted, celebrated, challenged, but never, never ignored. Chumpih. (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like I've crated a Frankenstein. EEng 20:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Regretting not using the term "a double-dose of his pinyin". (cf. Idiocracy) Chumpih. (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Chumpih: Curse missed opportunities. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
At minimum these should probably have |labels=no—that by itself would cut them down pretty substantially. I'm not sure if MOS can help with whether the traditional Chinese should be stated, though; that seems like a potential (rather tedious) content dispute. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 10:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though the Corolla is Japanese, when it is sold in the Chinese market it is often sold and badged with a Chinese name because many locals cannot read English. However, Chinese markets don't all use the same scripts. Mainland China uses simplified characters (typically less strokes) from a common use of approx. 7000 characters. Hong Kong and Taiwan use traditional characters (which often have more strokes) from a common use of approx. 13000. I used to write EFTPOS software for Asian markets and once had to verify that every one of those 7000+13000 characters displayed correctly - a very boring few weeks. Anyway, it is reasonable to show the local name in whichever market. For Mainland China, the local name should be shown in simplified characters. For other Chinese markets, it reasonable to show the local name in traditional Chinese characters. However, beware that some Chinese markets just use the English name (eg Hong Kong used "Corolla" badges without Chinese characters when I lived there in the 1990s).  Stepho  talk  23:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

BFRA notice for bot to remove WP:REFPUNCT errors

Resolved
 – Approved.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SdkbBot. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Do explanatory footnotes go before or after references?

Moved from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 76 § Do explanatory footnotes go before or after references?

Question: When a sentence ends with both an {{efn}} explanatory footnote and a reference, as in the second sentence here, do we have any guidance on which should go first? If not, does anyone have preferences? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that this is the wrong venue for that question. Perhaps better answered at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout or some other venue that deals with article style issues.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Moved. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Refs before notes, unless the same ref is used for the sentence that follows. The ref supports what's just been stated in the text, and that's paramount – because the reader needs to see the source supporting the statement before being presented with an aside (that is, the point made in an explanatory footnote), which may come via a different source. But it's not the venue for this issue, strictly speaking. JG66 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
No, we do not need to fragment discussion venues for every single MOS subpage; the subpages are split off to make navigating and reading the guideline pages themselves easier, but that has nothing to do with the discussion pages, and having discussions in a million different places where no one is likely to see them I don't see as beneficial. Anyway, I respectfully disagree with user:JG66 here (this is merely my opinion, though, and theirs is equally valid). I don't think there is any need to have strict adherence to references being placed after the exactly text that they support - as long as they're in the right order and in the right paragraph that's perfectly fine (some articles do not even use inline citations at all, and while inline citations are always encouraged, there certain styles that do not use them that are also acceptable on WP). Explanatory notes, though, may not make sense unless they are placed after the text they reference. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops, a bit of miscommunication above; JG66 was talking about WT:CS1 being the incorrect venue, not here; it was before I moved this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If the explanatory note has a different or no citation then it might make sense to place the note after the reference to help ensure that people don't think it's being cited from that reference. But I don't think it's a vital issue. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sister Project Boxes and MOS Conflict

Hi! The MOS Seems to contradict in an area and I could use some clarification.

MOS:SO states that Internal links to related English Wikipedia articles, with section heading "See also"; link templates for sister-project content also usually go at the top of this section when it is present (otherwise in the last section on the page).

This is in apparent contradiction to MOS:ELLAYOUT, which states that Links to Wikimedia sister projects and Spoken Wikipedia should generally appear in "External links", not under "See also". If the article has no "External links" section, then place sister links at the top of the last section in the article. Two exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource links may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).

So, which is it? Should I put sister project boxes in External links or See also? Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish added the first one with this edit in November 2020. I believe it's just an error since it was supposed to be restating MOS:LAYOUT, which then as now stated that they belong under "External links". —Nizolan (talk · c.) 10:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I've changed MOS:SO to reflect MOS:ELLAYOUT. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 09:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Nizolan, So does that mean Argentina is wrong with portals then? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tyrone Madera: This criterion is about sister project content, so Wiktionary, Wikisource etc., whereas portals are links to other stuff on Wikipedia itself—in other words portals are internal, not external, links. MOS:SEEALSO covers portals. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Nizolan, Oops, right. I got them mixed up just for a second when I posted. Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
My bad. Yes, the SO material is meant to summarize ELLAYOUT on this point, so it should say to use the EL section not the SA section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Retaining existing styles

Is there any reason why the general rule for WP:ENGVAR (that is to say, the rule that is applied to all non-STRONGTIES articles when determining which spelling conventions to use) are not applied to MOS:Retaining existing styles more generally? While it inevitably does result in certain articles using a convention that any given editor happens to not like best, it IS an all-in-all fair and easy to determine measure for determining which convention to use if ever contention comes up.

But the way "Retaining existing styles" is currently written, it basically means that whomever inappropriately switches the article's existing convention (take WP:ERA for example, which applies the rule from here) from one convention to another and happens to do so during some time when nobody was paying attention can then, after a bit of time has gone by, enforce keeping it that way against any editor that tries to change it back (i.e., "The MOS says its is inappropriate for an editor to change from the existing style to another! Please respect the existing style of this article! (even though I didn't when I switched it myself from the other style to this one; but, ye snooze ye lose, sucker! sorry bout it!"

If this kind of behaviour CAN be easily prevented (which the ENGVAR rule does: that is, using the convention that was used in the earliest revision after the article ceased being a stub), it should be. If a guideline inadvertently encourages that kind of editing behaviour, it ought to be reexamined. Any reasonable argument for why it shouldn't be? Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. BilCat (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Firejuggler86 and BilCat: Devil's advocate: Is it really true that this kind of behaviour CAN be easily prevented by modifying the policy as you propose?
  1. I'd argue that no form of any policy can "prevent" bad behaviors. The best policies discourage bad behaviors and make users less likely to engage in them, and failing that they at least give other editors ammunition and easy justification for reversing bad behaviors. (To be clearer: The behaviors which the guidelines attempt to influence are the changes editors make to article content. Whereas the thing you're describing as "bad behavior" isn't an editorial action, but rather an argument made by someone in defense of an editorial action. Writing guidelines to provide pre-decided outcomes in content disputes is not, IMHO, a worthwhile use of the MOS namespace, because WP:IAR means there are no pre-decided consensus discussions.

  2. Case in point: What comes immediately before the MOS:RETAIN stub "rule" you mentioned is, When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue... — IOW, the stub-rule isn't meant to prevent someone imposing a convention, nor to avoid having to have a consensus discussion about their edit should it become controversial (at any point in time). MOS:RETAIN is merely suggesting a last-resort means of resolving such a discussion, should it become hopelessly deadlocked. The conversation still has to come first, and should ideally be resolved among its participants.

    If your straw person who swooped in and imposed a convention but then pretended otherwise really acted the way you describe, other editors are not idiots and can easily call them out on it. There is no "getting off on a technicality" in consensus discussions, none very few of us are idiots and we can all read edit histories.

  3. That "rule" you characterize as so clear-cut is really anything but. use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety is actually a lot more vague than it may seem. Somewhat arbitrary definition of when an article ceases to be a stub aside, take these scenarios:
    • Someone points to a revision A, which they view as the first relevant post-stub edit, in which an editor added some text that contained the word "color". Aha! Clearly the article is written in US English.
    • But then another participant points out that in the immediately previous edit, a "DD Month, YYYY" date was inserted. Gadzooks! It seems the article is actually required to stick with British Eglish.
    • ...OK, NOW imagine that, instead of revisions A and A-1, the introduction of "color" and "DD Month, YYYY" dates were actually both part of the same edit.
There's really no wikilegislating our way out of sometimes just having to have a consensus discussion, if an edit is controversial or disputed. Nor can (or should!) the MOS attempt to pre-decide the outcomes of those discussions, for all scenarios. (Again, IMHO.) ---- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Another thing people forget or misunderstand is that defaulting to what was chosen in the first major (i.e. non-stub) edit is a last resort. It's what we do when consensus discussion fails. Nor does it come up frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Instructions on the placement of "Anchor" templates

Greetings and felicitations. Currently Section headings disagrees with the Template:Anchor documentation on the placement of anchors. The current examples in the MOS show the templates inside the section headings. Template:Anchor#Basic format states

In general, place an anchor on the line above a section header:
{{anchor|Anchor name 1|Anchor name 2}}
== Section header ==

The reason is explained in Template:Anchor#Rationale for placement above header. I'd like to change the examples to follow the template's own usage. Comments? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

{{Anchor}} is correct — be bold — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
To me, they are both problematic. Having the anchor above the section makes editing them counterintuitive - you have to edit the previous section to adjust the anchors, sometimes this leads to duplication. Placing the anchor in the section header means that after publishing, I am taken to the top of the page along with a really long url with the anchors added. Is there anyone around who knows anything about computers and could fix this? The most logiacl would be to place the anchor following the header and just have the code appropriately adjust where one lands. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason for placing them above is that the page will default to the line the {{anchor}} is on when loading the page as the top of the display. If you place it on the same line as the heading, it breaks things (regardless of if it's within or outside the ==equals signs== or not). If you place it a line below, it won't show the section header but only the first line of text in the section. I'm unsure as to whether images may get cut off if they are not well below the section header either - but I suspect that can be worked around. The reason it ideally should be placed immediately above, with no empty lines in-between, the section header is so that the section header is shown as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I understand all that. I am just saying it would be nice if using the anchor made the page load with an extra line or two above it, which would enable us to place the anchor in a more logical spot.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd go with Mr.choppers' suggestion, though I am unable to implement it, and it would potentially mean cleaning up the placement of many, many existing templates. If it was implemented, a bot would likely need to be created or modified to take care of that task. (Given the direction of this discussion, I'm going to place a notice on the Anchor template's talk page pointing to here.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@DocWatson42: - I should have looked at the template page... there is a workaround; one just adds {{subst:anchor|Foo bar}} to the section title.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I've just removed that sentence. Doing that is worse than using the {{Anchor}} within the section heading. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Archived discussions show there is no good place to put an anchor although putting it before the associated heading is definitely the worst method. If I put an anchor for section 5 at the end of section 4, it is guaranteed that the anchor will be damaged or removed by someone editing section 4 in the future. Consider what it looks like: I want to add something to the end of section 4 so I hit edit for that section. I scroll to the end to type my text. I see {{anchor|whatever}} with no explanation (please don't recommend adding one because wikitext is already too bloated). I'm going to add my text at the end of the section (after the anchor), or I might replace the anchor because it serves no visible purpose. Also, some people move sections by, for example, editing section 5 and deleting it after copying the wikitext to their clipboard. Then they edit (say) section 10 and paste section 5 at the end. They never even see the anchor in section 4. Or consider a significant rewrite of section 5 which ends up changing its purpose, again with the editor not even knowing the section has an anchor for specific terms. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Placing the anchor above the section heading is the only "correct" solution, regardless of how tricky that is when editing. Adding a comment above the anchor should slow down most people who feel the need to remove it. Putting the anchor inside the heading or on the same line as the heading is a Really Bad Thing. In the end, many anchors just end up under their heading, because this is just simpler for the editor. Having the browser "nudge" up a bit to show the heading when the user lands there is not going to be viable. Scrolling the window to have the anchor at the top is basic browser behavior and adding some JavaScript to alter that is not going to be trivial. Not impossible, but it would not happen this decade. Of course, the "right" solution is to use the section heading as the anchor and never change the section heading text or change it and then always fix all of the inbound links to it. That way we would never need the anchor template. However, we live in the real world and positioning the template above the heading with a suitable comment is the best compromise — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I put the {{anchor}}s into List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation, as noted before each section. (They used to be referenced by number, so they could change every year.) It seems that there is a blank line between each one and the section. I check every year or three to make sure that they are still right. They have to go before, and yes editors might mess them up. But then editors can mess up enough other things, and we survive. There are no comments, and I don't remember any actual problems with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gah4 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There are 3 places to put anchors:

  • Above the heading: inbound links do the right thing. but as John said, the anchor is technically in a different section and sometimes gets screwed up when editors move sections around. This doesn't happen very often but it does happen.
  • In the heading: inbound links do the right thing. Very hard to mess up. But it makes edit summaries a lot longer than they need to be. I find this makes the history too hard to read.
  • Below the heading: inbound links jump to below the heading (ie the heading is hidden just above the top of the browser window). It does solve all the other problems of the other 2 methods but nobody likes what the reader is presented with.

Myself, I prefer above the heading as the lessor of evils. I see no true solution without modifying MediaWiki.  Stepho  talk  02:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the heading being off-screen. I just clicked on the link, it took me to that spot, therefor that's where I need to be. It would be nice if the heading was visible, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker. Placing an anchor for a section in the previous section just seems super dumb and placing it in the header makes it easier for someone who is changing the section title to miss it and delete it. Which, considering that one of the reasons for using anchors is to avoid having to change links when sections get renamed, seems counter productive. --Khajidha (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
When putting anchors in section headings, they must be substituted (as explained in MOS:HEADINGS). Substituted anchors don't appear in the edit summary, and after changes are published you are taken to the correct heading (which doesn't happen when not substituting the template). The biggest disadvantage is that it makes the wikicode even harder to read. I put some tests on my sandbox (which you are free to edit if you wish). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Khajidha: I don't see the problem with the heading being off-screen. I just clicked on the link, it took me to that spot, therefor that's where I need to be. It would be nice if the heading was visible, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker.
Oh, I definitely do! Links to sections may very often go through redirects or suffer from other forms of indirection, such that there can be very little indication why you've been dropped at that particular point in an article (exactly what article you don't even know, unless you scroll to the top) and what it could possibly have to do with whatever you were just previously reading.
Having the section heading visible isn't a perfect solution to that problem (like I said, it'd be nice to know what article the section was a part of), but at least it provides some sort of framing context for what you're about to read. How helpful that is depends on how helpful the section title is (something like "History" is less than enlightening), and how much of a submarine the original link you followed was.
Besides, I'm not sure the "previous section" thing is really that much of a concern these days as it was in the past, given all the Visual Editor users who'd be oblivious to it anyway. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

An alternative is doing ==Blah blah<span id="Yak yak"></span>==. That makes the incoming link to "#Yak_yak" to go the heading, not below it and not above it, and it also doesn't mangle the name of the heading in the "Edit summary" field when editing. This thread's own heading is an example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that's indeed the best way. My biggest concern with putting the thing in the heading was that it'll make the wikicode look really bad (especially for pages like News style that have a lot of anchors), but that option seems to more or less solve it. I recently found this test page made by, oh hey that's you! But yeah this option appears to have far less bad disadvantages than the other ones. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The "invisibility" of the span tag will probably be an issue with some editing technologies and will probably be lost — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Above reply via a mobile device using the reply tool just to see if I could. Not a kind experience. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

How long should "new" last

This whole thought starts with looking at the page for Ken Silverman, where they referred to the now two year old game Ion Fury as new. So at what point do we no longer call something "new"? While I am of the opinion that we should avoid its usage as much as possible on wikipedia, if it must be used, how long should it last on a page? It would be difficult to create a hard and fast rule, perhaps we could create a rule of thumb? I propose two years, as that seems fitting, however I am split on this, as different mediums have different longevities and some works may have more cultural presence than others. H28260100 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Advertising FAQ's: A Guide for Small Business". www.ftc.gov. FTC. Retrieved 30 April 2021.

I generally treat it as though the page won't get any more updates and then somebody reads it in, say 2030. If new/recent doesn't make sense in 2030 then don't use those words in 2021.  Stepho  talk  00:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Why, it's almost as if you're following MOS:CURRENT and MOS:RELTIME! EEng 01:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not only about whether the page gets updates. Wikipedia content gets reproduced all over the place, so even if we update, there can still be old static copies around the web. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Old static copies around the web are beyond the scope of our concern. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We have some templates that can help if you want to insert a request to clarify the timeframe, such as {{when}}, {{clarify timeframe}}, {{year needed}}, {{update-inline}}, and {{update after}}, and categories such as Category:Vague or ambiguous time and Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. Using the |reason= parameter with the templates can help explain the concern. I think "new" is almost never appropriate. I agree with Stepho-wrs' comment that ten years without updating seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. Also watch out for "will", as in "Their new single will be released in August and the band will go on tour throughout the nation next Spring, building on the success of their hot new album." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Quotes withing French lyrics

On the article for Canada's national anthem, the original French lyrics are presented. O Canada#Original French version. The original lyrics have a quote. Two editors believe that the English quotes should be replaced with guillemets. My reading of MOS:QUOTEMARKS says that they should not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Do not use … guillemet (« ») marks as quotation marks (except when such marks are internal to quoted non-English text – see MOS:CONFORM).

I don't see any ambiguity. — HTGS (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: replace usage of template character combinations such as {{ndash}} with "what you see if what you get" such as "–"

A Wikipedia user in another discussion argued that we need to replace template character combinations such as {{ndash}} with "what you see if what you get" such as "–". This is because few people remaining would use non-Unicode operating systems like Windows 95. I agree with his argument and would propose amending the MOS and specifically asking for the replacement of such templates with Unicode. I think explicitly asking for replacement will make it easier for non-technical users to edit Wikipedia. @Graeme Bartlett: @Skews Peas: @Beyond My Ken: WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would support preferring the use of the unicode character instead of the template. I don't think we should delete the templates, or even deprecate them yet, just prefer the simpler Unicode. Also I do not suggest that editors go around mass converting anything, just change when there are other edits to do, as these changes would be cosmetic for editors, and would not affect readers. AWB could include the rules. Another template to substitute is the spaced ndash Template:Spaced en dash. Also {{bull}}, {{dot}}, {{middot}} could be discouraged. I do think that the non-breaking space should not be inserted as a Unicode character. Also I seriously question the use of half-width spaces. The advantage of using the characters is that editors can see what it is in the Wikitext. It is also simpler to edit in the visual editor. There is less wikitext, less work for the parser, and less chance of hitting a limit if the Unicode is used. Years ago I think I mangled some articles by editing from a browser/operating system that did not support Unicode. But I don't think we would have any editors doing that nowadays. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Absofuckinglutely not. People who think the reason for using templates or html escapes is something about "non-Unicode operating systems" need to educate themselves about the issue before making such a proposal. And arguments about "work for the parser" are laughable. EEng 02:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    @EEng: I'm all ears to learn about it, but I'm not sure where to learn more as I'm not sure what the discussion would be called (otherwise I'd search the archives) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    See below. EEng 06:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a terrible idea. The problem with just writing the "horizontal line" character is that anyone looking at it cannot tell what it is, except by guessing, then searching to see if it matches. See the series of edits here, where a well-meaning editor kept replacing m-dashes (—) by the Chinese numeral for one (一). In any event, how does replacing explicit, readable indications of what a mark is by a picture of the mark help "non-technical" users? Is it because they only do WYSIQPSEE ("something else entirely"), and don't care what a mark is as long as it looks about right? Imaginatorium (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I, for one, cannot easily distinguish the visual appearance of the minus sign (&minus;, −) from the en-dash (&ndash;, –) and frequently edit articles where they should be properly distinguished from each other. This proposal would make this much more difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Just no. Editors use a whole range of devices and technologies to edit, so using templates is often the only way to input symbols that are difficult (or impossible) to type — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Not only no but hell no. If anything it should be the other way around. It can be excruciatingly difficult to visually distinguish between different characters even without taking into account the various spaces and dashes. Consider Α versus A, μ versus u, ν versus v, Ο versus O. Also, input of, e.g., foreign alphabets, mathematical symbols, is awkward even on systems that fully support Unicode. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Editors should just chill, relax and stop getting so worked up about different types of dash. MapReader (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I totally agree..it seems like 3⁄4 of MOS discussions are about dashes..I find it a bit ridiculous. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Explicit HTML entities are generally as usable as templates to allow editors to easily distinguish/input specific Unicode characters. I would not object to deprecating templates in favour of these unless no spelled-out HTML entity is available. —Quondum 14:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Most editors know little or nothing about html, and I would expect that the html character entity names would be off-putting to many. With templates, at least there's a way to find their docs inside Wikipedia. So the html may be "as usable" by those who know how to write them, but may be less usable by those who don't know how to read them. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's a great point. EEng 23:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm surprised, I think – I would have assumed that those same editors would not know to use the templates either; "at least there's a way" does not count for much. It would then be for others to clean up. Anyhow, it seems clear to me that the original suggestion (of using only the Unicode characters) is not going to fly. The question now would be whether any guidance should change. —Quondum 23:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    I would like to see the rationale for using templates and unicode written in somewhere so people know why to use them WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    I endorse that: this is a concrete suggestion that makes sense to me. —Quondum 00:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Looking more closely, I see that what I had in mind is addressed in the last paragraph of MOS:MARKUP already, so I do not feel the need for change. —Quondum 14:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    How about linking the style guide to lists of appropriate named character entities and templates, and deprecating numeric character references. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    Some other HTML entities might be worse, but I don't see much difference between the code "&ndash;" and "{{ndash}}". Same keyword, just delimited differently. Interesting point about the template documentation, though I wonder how much extra usability that really adds. Wouldn't people who are advanced enough to know about template documentation also generally be capable of learning about entity markup? Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:57 Sat 24, AEDT) 00:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I notice that several users above have signed with "— name" not "{{mdash}} name". :P
    On a less frivolous note: consider that in the "classic" / "2010" editing UI, the en and em dashes appear in the CharInsert panel and also in the toolbar under Special characters → Symbols. If there is a strong consensus for using {{ndash}}, then should that be in CharInsert instead of "–"? — Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:40 Sat 24, AEDT) 00:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If Whisper to Me is referring in his opening comment to me, he misconstrued what I meant. I never said or meant that "{{ndash}}" should be replaced with a horizontal line. I did object to an editor making unnecessary mass replacements of " –" and " -" with "{{snd}}", since the change was unnecessary as it made no difference in the rendered page, clogged up people's watchlists with unnecessary edits, and replaced a very clear piece of code with one that was unclear: if one didn't know what "{{snd}}" meant, it's not intuitively obvious from looking at it. That being said, I have no objections to editors writing article using whatever they're most comfortable using, my entire argument was about unnecessary mass changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: The opening comment refers to a different user who did propose this WhisperToMe (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. I disagree with the proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I still don't know how to insert Unicode characters on Windows. I never quite understood the notation. I presume you're meant to click the Windows key and then hold a bunch of random numbers you're expected to remember? Not sure (easier on a Mac with option + -). So that might be one reason to keep the templates. As for char insert, that doesn't show in the new Reply Tool (in Preferences -> Beta features) or in the Reply Link script. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think we should keep this as is. How clearly the various dashes render depends on the details of the display and font. I know how to tell, and I know the various possibilities. Not everyone does. I learned html from almost the beginning, and I've been finding out that quite a variety of people around WP still know html, like it, and use it. I tend to employ unicode only when essential. Others do differently.. I think it's a pooor idea to remove options that people know, in favor of uniformity, when our actual markup can do the conversions. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    • There is a list of commonly used characters a the bottom of the editing window. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Those would be more useful if they were annotated. Also, it van be difficult to distinguish, e.g., "−" from "–". Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

McCune–Reischauer clarification request (notice)

Leaving a note since this is a more widely watched talk page that I've requested clarification regarding whether the guideline recommending McCune–Reischauer romanisation in articles about pre-division Korea is actually in force at "MRR guideline?" here. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the MoS article referring to a different article? Request/suggestion that it explicitly clarify same.

I am very new to Wikipedia. The first article I try to read is the article wikipedia("Manual of Style").

The first sentence of that article immediately leaves me wondering if I am reading the actual MoS itself and should keep reading or an article _about_ the MoS and should instead go off to find the MoS.

I suggest that the very first sentence of the "Manual of Style" article explicitly clarify whether it _is_ the MoS or whether it is _about_ the MoS. 

   "The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles."

would be clearer to this reader if it instead said something more along the lines of: 

   "The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS, which is the article you are reading) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles."

Sometimes "You are here." signs help, even in text.

Yes, I know that "everybody" understands what that sentence means, where "everybody" is defined as people who are complete novices reading the very first page they have been pointed to for learning about wikipedia.

2601:1C1:C100:F420:E45B:C0E1:383F:12 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Yet another random minor contributor without portfolio

I changed the first word from The to This to address this point. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

In the section here, add as an example a sports score, for example "Germany beat Portugal 4–2 in the group stage." or "The Washington Nationals beat the New York Mets 5–2." 76.103.46.252 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You're not satisfied with the examples in the line that begins, a 51–30 win;   a 22–17 majority vote? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Hyphenating "virtual reality" as an adjective group

Should "virtual reality" when used as an attributive adjective, such as in "virtual reality headset", be hyphenated or unhyphenated? --Masem (t) 06:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Background

At a resent move request at Talk:Virtual reality headset#Requested move 24 March 2021, the issue came up that under MOS:HYPHEN, the article should be at "Virtual-reality headset", specifically as A hyphen can help to disambiguate... and Compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively (adjectives before the nouns they qualify.. As noted by the discussion, this style of hyphenating "virtual reality" as an attributive adjective has some support in reliable sources including the Encyclopedia Britannica, but more commonly in the reliable industry sources in computing and video games, the adjective phrase is left without a hyphen, and some of the argument at the move request was about retaining the industry's presentation, which is in contrast to the WP:Specialized-style fallacy. The move request was closed without consensus.

Given how frequently "virtual reality" as an attributive adjective is used on Wikipedia both as article titles and in body, it makes sense to seek an RFC to determine how WP should standardize on the use of the hyphen or not. This RFC would also be expected to affect related phrases like "augmented reality" and "mixed reality" which are both commonly used as attributive adjectives and have the same type of problem with the industry literature that serves as reliable sourcing tending to omit the hyphen. --Masem (t) 06:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: The move's non-admin closure has been challenged by three editors already [8] and would have probably proceeded to WP:MR tomorrow if not rescinded, had this RfC not been opened.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Support (hyphenation: "virtual-reality headset")

  • Support as before. WP needs to take every opportunity to make it easier for non-experts to recognise such word strings. Experts see them every day; we don't. Tony (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. No exceptions for a generic invention. Especially any inventor could, without analysing English, write this. "I was nearly there. Our work had brought to fruition a virtual (virtually a) reality headset". They omit the brackets, the readers have the wrong gist.- Adam37 Talk 15:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as with other compounds used as modifiers in front of a noun. Omitting the hyphen has no positive effect for any reader, while including it helps the unfamiliar reader parse the multi-word phrase correctly. English grammar affords the opportunity to make the meaning easier to see for all readers, so why would we write it in a lazy way that's just OK for already-familiar readers, even if that's commonly done in contexts where people are already familiar? Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Hyphenating attributive compounds is generally standard English usage, and I'm not convinced that this is an exception. Take, for instance, these articles from the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the BBC, all of which hyphenate the phrase. And this is not just nitpicking. As Adam37 notes above, hyphenation has the potential to reduce ambiguity in some cases. I therefore see no need to depart from the traditional rule. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A search on the BBC website for "virtual-reality headset" revealed just two articles with the hyphenated form on the first 100 results. We can conclude that the hyphenated form is atypical there. Is the same low frequency of the hyphenated form apparent on those US sites also? Would it be fair to say "the overwhelming majority of articles on the BBC websites use the unhyphenated form of Virtual Reality Headset"? Or is there some evidence that the hyphenated form is anything other than a rarity? Chumpih. (talk) 01:00 + 22:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The New Yorker would appear to use the hyphenated form exclusively. The others do indeed use both forms. Since the evidence is equivocal, I still believe that we should use the clearer and more traditional form. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to see the evidence here that supports the notion that the hyphenated form is traditional? A search on New Yorker didn't turn up much, and the few articles that contained "virtual-reality headset" were paywalled. Washington Post was completely paywalled. NY Times looks to have the vast majority of results being unhyphenated - something like 12:2 within the sample that could be mustered. Chumpih. (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • By "traditional", I meant to say that hyphenating attributive compounds is, in a general sense, the traditional rule. I don't believe this to be contested. A few more results: My examination of 16 JSTOR (scholarly journals, etc.) results found that 6 used a hyphen, showing a clear split. The WSJ's headlines lean strongly (but not exclusively) toward hyphenation: see this. My point here isn't to say that there's a consensus in reliable sources for hyphenation, but instead to say that there isn't a consensus against it. In such cases, I would simply apply MOS:HYPHEN as written, using hyphens to "link related terms in compound modifiers" like this one. Doing so would also enhance clarity, as discussed above. Barring a clear and unequivocal consensus in reliable sources to the contrary, we should not depart from that which conforms both with policy and with prudence. In my view, such a consensus does not exist here. (Only on Wikipedia could I wax loquacious in defense of a hyphen. Alas...) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree, there's no consensus against the hyphenated form. It's out there for sure. Where does that leave us? Perhaps we need to see the relative frequency of the hyphenated to unhyphenated form. As previously stated, results from a search on duck duck go with hyphen, the hyphenated form appears nowhere on the first 2 pages of results (outside of the URLs), which suggests the hyphenated form is not widely done - but is that good enough? We can weight by quality: on the one hand we have New Yorker, WSJ and possibly some others to be identified; on the other hand we have most other publications discussed, showing the hyphenated form in a minority - sometimes a significant minority, sometimes a tiny 2% minority. Non-rhetorically: what else can we do?
    Looking to policy, we have a duty not to misinform. Apologies for the repetition, but here's an argument: It would be a poor show if some reader of the article were to walk away thinking that the hyphenated form is the correct, common, or preferred representation.
    (That aside, may I say right back at you that it's a genuine pleasure debating the hyphen with you.) Chumpih. (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If one is to do a survey of what is out there, it would be rather helpful to try to separate results between general interest/non-tech sources (which would include NYTimes, BBC, WaPost, .etc) from tech industry ones. My gut tells me that within the industry, the use of the hyphen will likely be non-existent, but in the general interest works, the ratio will be rather different and interesting. --Masem (t) 04:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • My view is that when reliable sources are in conflict, we're permitted to choose on our own what best fulfills the needs of the project instead of simply deferring to to the view of the perceived majority. This is, for instance, why we use logical quotations. (If there's a clear consensus in reliable sources, we are in my view generally best off deferring, but we've agreed that isn't the case here.) In my opinion, the benefits of hyphenation outweigh the harms. The primary reason is that hyphenation reduces ambiguity. SMcCandlish aptly explained the possible ambiguities in the RM, and it seems clear that the chance of confusion is essentially zero when a hyphen is added. English-language learners (note the hyphen!) and those who are not subject-matter experts (another one!) would benefit the most. Since they're our main audience, the needs of the project would suggest that we prioritize the clearer form. Plus, it's consonant with policy and with traditional English usage, and it seems to be particularly prevalent among outlets (New Yorker, WSJ, some academic journals) that have a reputation for editorial control. The possible harms appear to be minimal, particularly considering the fact that it's a well-attested usage. Extraordinary Writ (talk), Defender of the Hyphen, 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There appears to be a conflict between the widely-accepted form (demonstrably 20x more widely used, by multiple methods) and the minority form imposed by sites with strong editorial control. The New Yorker has an iron grip. It's arguable that the strong editorial control is the issue here - it caused an artificial and unwarranted 'correction' in order to satisfy some grammatical diktat. While many of us are hyphen-loving people, the counter argument is that we don't have the right to 'correct' the names of things, even if there is a belief it will be 'clearer'.
    Here's another comparison of frequency from Google Trends showing the hyphenated form is exceedingly uncommon. (And try this link or this link to forestall arguments about folks being too lazy to hyphenate.) Chumpih. (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The New Yorker example is a transcript, so it presumably wasn't subjected to editorial review. The headline, which presumably was, does hyphenates "virtual-reality app", which is also an attributive compound. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Objectively, hyphen is the pedantically correct usage, and tends to be used by sources such as Britannica that generally exhibit pedantry. Applying our pedantic MOS:HYPHEN consistently is supposed to override quibbles such as endless appeals to "common name" (hint: common name does not apply to styling), fruitless analyses such as Washington post looks to be about 2:1 preferring unhyphenated and prevent inconsistency in our titles (for example, shall we have "virtual-reality headset" because its sources prefer a hyphen, but "virtual reality game" because those do not?!) Yeah, WP:CONSISTENCY may not be the most important criterion among the five, but if it can be achieved chiefly and without much fuss (well, we have fuss already), why not? I mean, I understand that many people do not care about pedantry, but why obstructing those who do? I strongly agree with Extraordinary Writ that when reliable sources are in conflict, we're permitted to choose on our own what best fulfills the needs of the project instead of simply deferring to to the view of the perceived majority. No such user (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting: the WP:CONSISTENT guidance on titles also states "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". Nobody searches for "virtual-reality headset" with the hyphen. Would you like a little evidence to back up that claim? Well, here's Exhibit A. Chumpih. (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
    • That is no evidence at all. What one types into a search engine is affected by the fact that it is a search engine. It quickly becomes evident that search engines pretty much ignore punctuation in their search input, and people stop using it because it is pointless effort. What people search for on Wikipedia might be more interesting, but again punctuation is probably not sensibly included in the guidance intention behind in shaping titles based on what people search for. —Quondum 12:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The statement "people stop using it because it is pointless effort" doesn't appear to withstand much scrutiny. There's strong evidence that people do actually use punctuation within their search engine queries. For example, here's Exhibit B and Exhibit C both of which show punctuation being used reasonably within search engine queries. Compare and contrast to Exhibit A, which seems damning of the use of hyphenation in "virtual-reality headset". Chumpih. (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    You have no way of knowing how many of the searches done with punctuation are because the people doing them just haven't learned yet that it doesn't make any difference. I stopped typing punctuation into searches after I figured out it was pointless. I concur with Quondum. MB 20:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's plausible, but the pertinence is elusive. Mixed feelings that you type fewer hyphens in search queries; your spacebar is being unnecessarily punished! Chumpih. (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    Chumpih, I think you thoroughly obliterated your own case with those exhibits. They clearly show a space being used predominantly where a hyphen is predominant in expected usage. So only 70% (or thereabouts) expected hyphen use is replaced by spaces in searches? —Quondum 21:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, do please allow the arguments to be clarified. The Exhibit B and Exhibit C show that people do type in hyphens sometimes in search queries, which refutes the central point of the arguments following "no evidence at all". In Exhibit C, we're talking about NFC, and, yep, the hyphen is seldom used overall, and it appears rarely in the query - but at least the hyphen is used a little bit. For Exhibit B, the hyphen is relatively common. Not necessarily preferred, but at least people are searching with hyphens every now and again. These examples are used to refute the statement "people stop using [punctuation]".
    Do please contrast with Exhibit A. According to that evidence, nobody is searching with the hyphen for "virtual-reality headset". Not in the run-up to Christmas. Not ever. Huge apologies for the repetition, and hoping to avoid accusations of WP:BLUDGEONing but perhaps an 'unpacking' is warranted: WP:CONSISTENT includes words on Naturalness which suggests that the search terms people use are important. From Exhibit A, we see people search exclusively for the unhyphenated form i.e. "virtual reality headset". A consequence could be that the unhyphenated form should be preferred. That's the argument. Again, apologies for the somewhat-repetitive clarification.Chumpih. (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    Google statistics are bad to use at any time for these arguments, as various WP essays make clear. Yes, it seems likely that the spaced form is more common in informal contexts, but this is also not an argument in this context. All I'm saying is that this approach does not carry significant weight here. I'm also saying that you are over-interpreting WP:CONSISTENT: its examples relate purely to word choice. I suspect that in formal contexts the space predominates too, but this is just the wrong way to show this. —Quondum 22:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    That appears somewhat Gish gallop style. There are several observations regarding the argument without much substantiation, as far as could be seen, so some further weight would be welcomed — if things are fallacious then let's have at them.
    Is there any clear rationale for why Google Stats are bad in this particular case? Is it possible to clarify why "[spaced form's overwhelming use] is .. not an argument"? Why does this approach not carry weight? And why is the observation of Naturalness in WP:CONSISTENT only applicable to words? Why is it all "just the wrong way to show this"? Chumpih. (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    This seems to be unproductive – we seem to be missing each other, and to no avail. I withdraw my comments made in response to your posts; your perspective is what should and does stand under this bullet. I have collapsed the discussion triggered by me so as a courtesy to others. Apologies to those whose comments that end up hidden; feel free to re-expose what you wish, and apologies for my confrontational style. —Quondum 13:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Repeating myself (just noticed I already supported above, so I'm just reformatting my second take at it) – I support hyphenation wherever it can help the unfamiliar reader to correctly parse the content. It's not a matter of what's "correct", since both forms are correct, or what's done outside wikipedia, which both are, but rather a matter of how best to apply the standard affordances of English punctuation to help the reader. I do grant that most readers won't stumble too much over it, but the hyphen also won't slow anyone down or read as weird, while the lack of hyphen will provide a garden-path parse to consider for those not already in the know. We can do better, and it is our style to do better, so we should. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support—there is no doubt that readers pick it up more easily with the hyphen. The exception might be those who encounter the item every day, but we're not addressing experts. Tony (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — This is about a headset that relates to virtual reality, not a virtual headset that relates to plain, or any kind of other reality. Standalone, virtual reality is not hyphenated. -Mardus /talk 07:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (no hyphenation: "virtual reality headset")

  • Oppose It's not widely done outside Wikipedia. While there's no question that a compound adjective should be hyphenated, this is a compound noun used in an adjectival form. Wikipedia appears somewhat atypical in its application of hyphens in this case, including Near Field Communication which is hyphenated on Wikipedia but practically nowhere else on the Internet. Light Emitting Diode gets a similar treatment here, and again it's grammatical 'correctness' versus common practice. Contrast to Passive electronically scanned array, for example. Chumpih. (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, it is widely done outside Wikipedia, considering how many such uses are common enough to make it into n-gram stats; the fact that it's more often omitted has been stipulated, and is due largely to nerds writing for nerds; let's not be that. And you're missing the point with "there's no question that a compound adjective should be hyphenated"; I don't know why you say that. What is a compound adjective? There's really no question that a compound noun used as a modifier before another noun should be hyphenated; that's what all the style guides recommend. It's not hard to find books (if you look beyond the specialist VR books, that hyphenate the compound when it's used as a modifier, e.g this one. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    And if you delete the hyphen in that Ngram Viewer query, the usages of "virtual reality" without a hyphen in a compound adjective are a bit more common (pay attention to the higher percentages along the vertical axis). --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Dicklyon:, the n-gram stats is interesting, but is there a decent comparison of the frequency of "virtual reality headset" to "virtual-reality headset" etc? Using the technique Coolcaesar suggested, the n-gram viewer results for the unhyphenated form suggest it's roughly 20x more prevalent than the hyphenated form.
Or to put it another way, results from a search on duck duck go with hyphen, the hyphenated form appears nowhere on the first 2 pages of results (outside of the URLs). Is there good evidence to show the hyphenated form is widely used? Chumpih. (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the hyphen is most commonly omitted, as it's most commonly insiders writing for insiders. Just as in other specialties. E.g. the AMA decided that now that every doctor knows what a small-cell carcinoma is, they recommend dropping the hyphen; of course, for the poor guy that thinks he just has a small cancer, this is very misleading. Specialists have their own style; we should write in a way that conveys the meaning to those who don't already know. There is no down side to including the hyphen where it helps. Dicklyon (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The "down side" is that the hyphen is atypical. In the case of VR headset, the hyphenated form is seldom used. There may be punctilious grammarians who are becalmed by the inclusion of the hyphen here, but "virtual reality headset" is a common, consumer term. Saying "it's most commonly insiders writing for insiders" looks to be specious, given that the search engine results cites listings on Amazon, etc.
Why would hyphenating this bring additional clarity? Are we certain it won't actually cause confusion in this "general audience"? What evidence is there that the hyphenated form is actually clearer, easier to parse, or more useful?
It's probably not for us to recast and alter common terms when they're the things getting referenced and used. It would be a poor show if some reader of the article were to walk away thinking that the hyphenated form is the correct, common, or preferred representation. Clarity is great, but let's not misinform. Chumpih. (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
As for your strawman about Passive electronically scanned array, I don't get it. That would never use a hyphen according to standard rules; are you thinking after the -ly adverb? That's never done. See Synthetic-aperture radar where the hyphen is important, in distinguishing a radar using a synthetic aperture from an aperture radar (whatever that might be) that is synthetic. That hyphen is similarly used in less than 10% of sources, but since our style is to write for the general audience that doesn't already know how to parse it, we include it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the same reasons as argued by User:Chumpih. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above, it appears to be small minority usage in reliable sources (noting that as a tertiary source Britannica is nowadays not preferred). It's already well on its way to being a readily recognisable descriptor, and likely heading toward becoming simply "VR" in the same way that PR is used in "PR manager" (noting incidentally that the full phrase is 'public relations manager', not 'public-relations manager', anyway). It's comparable to Artificial Intelligence in the phrase 'artificial intelligence program', which also is not hyphenated. MapReader (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above arguments noting that the common term, even in consumer/non-specialist usage, is without the hyphen. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. A hyphen does not help the reader's understanding if the reader is expecting to see something without it; indeed, in such a case, it hinders. Vaticidalprophet 00:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's less common in general usage (not a specialist term at all), and does nothing to improve clarity, because the term "reality headset" is meaningless, so there is no such thing as a virtual version of a reality headset. In other words, the only way to read "virtual reality headset" is a headset that allows a virtual reality experience, a common term that been established for over two decades. oknazevad (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish already pointed out numerous meaningful uses of "reality headset". And even if it were not meaningul, the hyphen helps the unfamiliar reader to parse and understand the phrase.
    • No, he pointed out other similar terms. None of those use the "reality headset" with no preceding modifier. With out a modifier "reality headset" is useless. In this case the term is a single modifier of a fixed compound term. oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons described in the RM. Wikipedia should defer to outside use. To back up to first principles... it is clearly incorrect to "fix" spelling (and sometimes borderline insulting, see people who complain about non-standard name variants) to a standardized form when the actual usage is something that is clearly not the standardized form. That doesn't mean that there's a problem that needs fixing, that just means that language is inconsistent sometimes. So if we accept that spelling can be unusual sometimes, so too can hyphenization rules. I'm not saying that there can't be a default guideline for hyphenization, that's fine. But it needs to be a guideline (not a firm rule) that defers to outside usage, in exactly the same way that "i before e except after c" defers to "weird", "seize", etc. Absolutely any rule in "proper" English usage can be overruled if the actual usage differs. If an editor thinks that all of this non-hyphenated usage in reliable sources is "wrong", that's great, but take it up with them, not on Wikipedia. If and when the usual form within the New York Times, books on virtual reality, etc. starts using the hyphen, then sure, Wikipedia will switch too. Per evidence in the RM, that isn't true currently. SnowFire (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's a silly strawman. Nobody has suggested that omitting the hyphen is "wrong", or needs to be "fixed". It's not very different from the thousands of other compounds that we hyphenate when used as modifiers, to help the reader. This is a standard affordance of English punctuation, which is widely used in the exact phrase "virtual-reality headset" even, not something we're making up. Just because a lot of writers don't bother with it, mostly assuming that their readers will be familiar enough to not stumble over the ambiguity, doesn't mean we should give up on doing the best job possible for our wider readership. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    You are making an almost assuredly incorrect assumption here, that writers "know" the pro-hyphen side is correct but simply "don't bother with it." If you actually ask these writers, they are not going to tell you "yeah, you're right, but pressing the hyphen key is just too much work." They are going to say that the non-hyphenated form is the standard and expected way to write it. It's certainly what I would say if my writing was challenged on the topic. Humor me here: if it could be proven to your satisfaction that most writers are intentionally using the non-hyphenated form, would this actually affect your stance at all, and would you reconsider? Or would you say that even in that scenario, too bad, hyphens help the reader, we should just ignore the outside world? SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chumpih, and SnowFire. The term is much more widely used without the hyphen. Polyamorph (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    We don't generally just copy stylings because they are more widely used. We have our own MOS, and we strive to do the best job for the general reader, who might not be familiar with the term, or how to interpret it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
As you have mentioned already, I disagree. Polyamorph (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the more common way to style the term. I know we have our own style guide, but Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum. I don't think anyone would be confused by the lack of hyphen either. -- Calidum 22:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I ummed and ahh'd over this for a long time, because after all I'm the editor who thought we really ought to write "open-world game". But it doesn't reflect real-world use among gamers or non-gamers, and I'm unconvinced by the arguments that this adds any clarity. I think non-hyphenation is simply cleaner when there's no real risk of ambiguity to address (as opposed to "black cab drivers" vs "black-cab drivers", to use the Guardian's example). Popcornfud (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In print I usually see just VR after first use. Rarely do I see vitual-reality and the trend in outside sources is to use hyphens only to avoid ambiguity. "Virtual reality" is very unlikely to be misunderstood, and since we have an adverb/adjective combination why the need to hyphenate? Plus when I read the opening statement that says this hyphen will carry over to terms like "augmented reality" and "mixed reality" etc... that seemed overly inclusive and a little scary what else might later be included. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The two words should not be hyphenated. Per proper grammar and existing style guides. I would not want to, a year from now, be reading articles on "augmented-reality" and "mixed-reality" either. None of these even look right. GenQuest "scribble" 05:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It probably should be clear that the hyphen would only be in place when these terms are used in an adjective form. If we are using the sentence "Oculus is a leader in the field of virtual reality." there would be no hyphen. --Masem (t) 23:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Either is acceptable. Virtual reality is an open compound, and normally you'd hyphenate it when used as an adjective preceding a noun. That is my hyphen-loving personal preference. But this rule is not absolute, and usage matters. One commonly speaks of a real estate agent or a high school student rather than a real-estate agent or a high-school student. When the unhyphenated form is common, it is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone argued that omitting the hyphen is "unacceptable". Rather, it's WP style to do what we can to help the reader. I dare say that real estate agent and high school student are familiar to almost all readers, while virtual reality game is much less so; so let's help the readers parse that expression by choosing the more helpful of the acceptable alternatives, as MOS:HYPHEN suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    I expect that "real estate agent" and "high school student" are unfamiliar to non-Americans, since those terms aren't used in most of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    I suspect you're right. And when I write for an international audience, I include the hyphens, because there's no down side to doing so. But the no-hyphen usage has been so strongly established for those ones in the US that they are listed as examples of exceptions in dictionaries; so at least in articles in US English, we're not going to hyphenate them. The situation is different with virtual-reality games, synthetic-aperture radar, small-cell carcinoma, narrow-gauge railway, etc., where the hyphen is in the minority (as with almost such writing, due to insiders writing for insiders), but is still common. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    What we could take it that as VR becomes more commonplace, then the idea that it will be like a term like "high school student" or "real estate agent" without hyphen in the future. But while most of us (likely) are well aware of VR, its still a relatively new thing, so the arguments here are related to the current state of the state. Perhaps in 5-10 years (presuming this closes as to require hyphens) we can re-evaluate the current usage to see where it stands. (This also relates to ATS's comment below, in that we may not yet be at a point that "virtual reality" is widely used as there's no way to misconstrue it, ala the same way we handle "high school student". --Masem (t) 23:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    Don't worry! Thanks to Hollywood and Netflix, we all know exactly what life in America is like. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Either per WAID. The pedant (and, to quote Jeff Foxworthy, "I are one") would say the hyphenate is correct. The same pedant could also point out that the term is so ingrained in the lexicon that its meaning cannot be misconstrued ('[virtual reality] headset' v 'virtual [reality headset]'). —ATS (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed. But pedantry does not figure in concerns over clarity. Primergrey (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    Interesting. I always thought that was pedantry's job. 😏 —ATS (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Either: A native speaker should find either natural when not in a sentence. English uses hyphenation primarily to disambiguate tightness of word grouping (a sort of syntactic disambiguator). What I do not see noted is that the use of spaces, hyphens and en dashes can depend on the immediate context (e.g. whether connected constructions include spaces or hyphens), including awkward combinations and meaning disambiguation. This is skewed for common phrases, which might depart from general usage for specific word groups. In all, this means that one cannot make a context-free recommendation, other than to make editors aware of the primary contributory language dynamics. —Quondum 14:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Either. WhatamIdoing nailed it. ... Even the OED gives examples of both spellings under: virtual reality, n. » Compounds » General derivative. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Man eating fish
Man-eating fish
–EEng

(Just for illustration, not taking a position on the present question)

How were the guidelines for politicized phrasing defined?

I see the vocabulary section of the MOS telling us to use gender neutral terms like "uncrewed" instead of "unmanned" which is a term that doesn't apply only to man. How was it defined that this politicized alternative is the "correct" one? --Cavendish Emperor (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Like everything else: by consensus. Although I wouldn't describe the issue the way you have; I would rather say we determined that the de-politicized alternative is the preferred one. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Odd that the consolidated term "unmanned" is considered the politicized one over "uncrewed" which was rarely used when UAVs and Drones first became popular. Not only that, the call for the surrogate was generally made by political movements. Another case in point: as of today (2021/06/11) the Google search for "unmanned"[1] brings up the Oxford widget with the definition and pronunciation of said word whilst the search for "uncrewed" [2] does not. Cavendish Emperor (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the word unmanned has an entirely different connotation for me than it apparently does for others here. EEng 18:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
With a slip of the razor my barber uncrewed me. pburka (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
And so your crewing days are over, I guess. Crewed, blewed, and tattooed, as sailors say. EEng 23:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yup… Adjective vs verb - Completely different connotations. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and I've been feeling bad about all the unarmed people in my neighborhood. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney, could you link to the archived discussion of which this fabled "consensus" was reached in regards to the mass-replacement of "unmanned" with "uncrewed", including articles about the 1960s took place? (I have tried to find this myself, and have been unsuccessful thus far). I have somewhat difficulty believing that the wider editor community at large would have attained consensus in favour of such a mass expulsion of a word that in all truth IS gender neutral to begin with (spacecraft can be "manned" by a woman/women, too, and that's perfectly correct usage! man does not mean "male", here) and replacing it with a horrid sounding neologism ("crewed" sounds the same as "crude", and in speech that inevitably lead to confusion: people hear "crewed spacecraft" and think that the speaker is talking about an inferior/substandard design or something). And I'm sure you know as well as I do that all kinds of things around here happen without getting consensus first, and if nobody notices right away, later it gets claimed that there was prior consensus when there wasn't. There's a LOT fewer active editors these days than in times past, too; therefore, it becometh easier and easier for shit to slip through the cracks. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know where that discussion was, but the consensus was to avoid the old term "manned" or "unmanned" in preference to more explicitly gender-neutral terms. Nobody is claiming that the old way is incorrect, just that it's no longer preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Per Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "search for unmanned on Google". Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  2. ^ "search for uncrewed on Google". Retrieved 11 June 2021.

Wikipedia is supposed to A use the most common usage in Englis and B not be a trend setter but rather be the follower. That, of course, is paraphrasing. Look, I don't know where the discussion is that says uncrewed is to be used over unmamned, but I'll continue to use the most common usage in English and not let a minority, but REALLY LOUD, mob use Wikipedia as an agent for their political agenda. Masterhatch (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the discussion, closed with a consensus to prefer uncrewed. That said, feel free to write content however you like. But when someone shows up to bring it in line with our MOS, instead of regarding them as a member of a mob with a political agenda, perhaps try seeing them as a collaborating entity. Primergrey (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
To end this on a hopeful note, consensus can change. It's good to be a part of a community that can respectfully disagree about things like this and change its mind if it wants to. It's been three years (boy time flys) since this decision, so if someone was adamant on bringing it up again, I don't think anyone would mind. Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a callout for W-L record treatment in sports

See MOS:ENBETWEEN.

Intent is to create an overt reference that W–L (or W–L–T) team records in sports, such as for a specific team or a head coach, use {{ndash}} rather than a hyphen as the delimiter between the numbers.

Existing text:

  • a 51–30 win;   a 22–17 majority vote;   but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not with the awkward six–two;  avoid confusingly reversed order: a 17–22 majority vote[a]


Proposed text

  • a 51–30 win;   a 12–0 perfect season;  a 22–17 majority vote;   but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not with the awkward six–two;  avoid confusingly reversed order: a 17–22 majority vote[b]


This convention is without controversy and already in near-universal use such as the Infobox:

The issue mostly arises with new editors who will intuitively type 12-0 rather than 12–0.

Feedback? UW Dawgs (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no opposition to this, but it’s worth saying that this won’t solve the problem; any editor who would read the MOS is not the problem. It is mere ignorance or laziness that skips the convention, not a lack of explicit callout in the Manual. — HTGS (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, but "see MOS:ENBETWEEN" then becomes useful in an edit summary or Talk page context. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I really doubt anyone reading ENBETWEEN would disagree that it also applies to scores or score records. But I'm not making an argument against this change, so I'll shut my mouth. — HTGS (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ It is not logically possible to have a "12–35 victory", except in a game where a lower score is better. Otherwise, use a construction like Clovis beat Portales, 35–12, or Jameson lost the election, 2345 votes to 6789, to Garcia, with parties, result, and number order in logical agreement.
  2. ^ It is not logically possible to have a "12–35 victory", except in a game where a lower score is better. Otherwise, use a construction like Clovis beat Portales, 35–12, or Jameson lost the election, 2345 votes to 6789, to Garcia, with parties, result, and number order in logical agreement.

Adjective order guidance (status/nationality in lede)?

Do we have any suggestions regarding adjective order -- e.g., as all know, we can say "little old rectangular green French knife", and there's no guideline necessary to tell us not to say "French rectangular old green little knife" I suppose, common sense will tell us not to and to fix if found.

But what about "Former Canadian hockey player" vs "Canadian former hockey player"? Status usually comes before nationality("Wounded French pilot" not "French wounded pilot), but the point has been made that:

  • If you want to get technical, "Former Canadian hockey player" can be taken to mean "hockey player who was formerly Canadian"
  • And if anybody ever wants to get technical, it's a Wikipedia editor
  • And the status-before-nationality rule in some cases doesn't seem as strict as most of the others. "Canadian former hockey player" doesn't, for some reason, grate as badly as "Canadian old hockey player" or ""Canadian blue hockey player" (which would anyway be better rendered as "Canadian hockey player who, for some inexplicable reason, is blue") etc.

I have seen people disagreeing over this a couple times. So if we don't have any guidance on this particular instance of adjective order (order of status/nationality in lede), should we? And if so, what?

  • A: No, it's fine.
  • B: Yes, and it should suggest status before nationality.
  • C: Yes, and it should suggest nationality before status.
  • 4: Yes, and it should say "Do as you think works best, but if somebody has already written it leave it as you found it".
  • E: I don't care. And never mention this again.
  • F: Mu. I unask the question, as all answers are absurd.
  • G: Other (describe)
  • H: Other (don't describe)
    Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
My strong impression is that "former" is heavily overused in this context. If they are known as a hockey player, the lead should say that they are a hockey player, not a former player. We don't describe Euclid as a "former mathematician" just because he's been dead for a couple millenia; he was a mathematician. The same should go for sports figures after their period of activity, including after their death. But if you insist on "former", it should go with the thing that it modifies, "hockey player", as "Canadian former hockey player". "Former Canadian hockey player" means to me that they are still a hockey player but now play outside Canada. "Formerly Canadian hockey player" is subtly different, meaning that they have given up their Canadian citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the difference with Euclid is, that bio (presumably) starts with Euclid was rather than Euclid is. For living persons, since the bio must necessarily begin with John Doe is, I think "former" is pretty much required. Otherwise it strongly suggests that Doe is an active player.
I would prefer to put "former" after nationality, as it is less ambiguous, even if the ambiguity is unlikely to trip many people up in practice. (Or even better, we could stop putting nationality in the first sentence of bios at all — that would solve a lot of problems. But I recognize that that's a bit of a longshot.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with all this. If something must be said, "retired" is probably better - former rather implies he was thrown out. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"Retired" could be misleading as it kind of implies he had a press release that said he was retired, rather than desperately trying to hook on with any team that would have him, and failing, which is commonly the case. But neither really imply anything very much, they are close to interchangeable, so perhaps "retired" should be suggested, giving "Retired Canadian..." and everyone knows what is meant and everyone's happy.
Good points tho... it's debatable tho. We never use "former" for dead people because "Joe Smith (1933-1986)" pretty much secures that point. But there is a big difference between an actress who is currently working and one who hasn't worked in 20 years and/or has announced retirement (but is still alive). You could use "was a hockey player" I guess but I think that also runs into flak and kind of sounds like maybe she's dead. So I don't know as advising to not use any employment status would fly. Editors seem to have voted with their feet on that one.
So I see what you're saying as to "former" being very closely tied to "hockey player". It may be that the nationality-before-status rule is weak... sometimes. So while you would certainly say "dead Canadian hockey player" not "Canadian dead". But "Canadian All-Star" works for me (so does "All-Star Canadian"). So hmmm.
However, I don't think anybody takes "former Canadian hockey player" to mean he's not Canadian anymore. People know how adjective order works and get what you mean, and they know that if you meant the other you would say something like "former hockey player, originally Canadian but now a French citizen" or whatever, because nobody would write "Former Canadian hockey player" with no further elucidation to indicate that he's formerly Canadian rather than formerly a hockey player, nobody writes that badly. English follows common usage not logic. So that part I personally am not worried about. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I think in the cases where "retired Canadian hockey player" doesn't work (for the player who didn't formally retire, but just never signed again), then the null solution ("Canadian hockey player") works. Either they're still a hockey player, because they (if no one else) see themselves as still active, or they're a hockey player the same way Euclid is a mathematician. If they're clearly retired, we can add that without problem to the front, keeping natural adjective order, and we needn't bother with "former" at all.
I also can't imagine a case where a "[currently] American hockey player" would be better served by "Former(ly) Canadian hockey player", but I don't think that's part of what you're asking. — HTGS (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we can use unmodified "hockey player" in the present tense for someone who has clearly ceased to play and isn't planning on a comeback. One who's currently unemployed but still looking for a team is a different matter. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
My strong impression is that "former" is heavily overused in this context: I suspect its prevalence is based off of an example at MOS:BLPTENSE: "John Smith (born 1946) is a former baseball pitcher ..."—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Whatever the right answer is, I'm sure it's not this: "Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe is a Canadian former American football player..." pburka (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    Oh yikes, that one's worst than you said. Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe (born June 23, 1981) is a Canadian former professional American football free safety[....]
    I think losing Canadian from the initial description would be a start, in line with my general remarks about nationality, and also "professional" and "free safety". Those things can be treated later. How about Oshiomogho Isaac "O.J." Atogwe (born June 23, 1981) is a former player of American football, of Canadian nationality. He played primarily at the free safety position. We don't need "professional" at all; it's normally understood that sports bios are of pros unless stated otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    "is a Canadian former professional player of American football who was a free safety ..."—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to add to the confusion… it could mean that he used to play for the Canadians, but was traded to the Leafs. Blueboar (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I just really don't see why we need to emphasize nationality so strongly. The article will get around to it; it's not like it'll be hard for the reader to figure it out. Put it in the second sentence, maybe. --Trovatore (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I think you're confusing him with a "Canadien former American football player." pburka (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • C Use "Canadian former hockey player". Former is an adjective operator that modifies what immediately follows it.[10] Order matters. Consider "child former actress", a child who used to be an actress, versus "former child actress" for an adult who used to act as a child.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    • No, I would still say "former child actress", even if the girl were still a child who happened to quit acting. Consider two things: one, child actresses, present or former, whose acting career never extended into adulthood (or has not yet) are virtually never referred to as just "actresses" - always "child actresses". And, on the flip side of that, if the subject is still a child, we would not start off the article with "Lucy Brown, age 9, is a child and a former actress." We would say shes a "former child actress"; no one could construe that to mean shes a 9 year old that's no longer a child. Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
      I'll trust the reliable source, Slate, and the linguists they quoted: "The Secret Rules of Adjective Order". Slate. August 6, 2004. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • G I think we overdo adjective stacking in lead sentences. When country-of-origin and country-of-activity are different, why not say "is a former football player from Canada who played in the American National Football League", "is a cricket player from Malaysia who played for Germany", "is a retired Olympic swimmer from Australia who competed for Brunei", "is a former hockey player from the United States who played in the Canadian Hockey League"? Struck bad examples. "Is a retired hockey player from Canada". Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Schazjmd: Actually, the case of a Canadian playing American football was not part of the original question.—Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Not part of the original question, but is an extension of the original question with additional high-confusion-risk variables thrown in, for which we have an actual example...so, still on topic, methinks. BTW, Schazjmd, I don't think the examples you struck are bad at all - they seem to me like good, well written solutions :). Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A or B - On the fence. In the particular example you gave, Herostratus, the way it should be written is "former Canadian hockey player"; the alternative reads as exceedingly clunky at best, and broken English at worst. I mean no unkindness here, but to anyone that would interpret that phrase as meaning the person is a "former Canadian" would be well advised to continue studying correct English grammar/usage; for that usage just does not exist in our language (but I do fully understand that other languages might phrase their sentences that way and how a second language English speaker coould be confused because of differences between phrasing in English vs phrasing in their native language). If we were describing a hockey player that was Canadian and is no longer so (let's say he defected to Soviet Russia or something), we would say "is a hockey player, formerly of Canada..." or similar.
  • BUT, I am hesitant to commit to B because there may be other specific cases we aren't considering where nationality first would be optimal. Which is why I think it's generally best to avoid such fine-detailed prescription in MOS guidelines... Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Quoting speech

It's normal practice to remove disfluencies such as "um", "uh", "you know" when quoting people speaking. They're not really part of the message, and including them unfairly makes the speaker seem less fluent or intelligent than one would perceive them to be by listening to the speech. I don't see this guideline here, though. I suggest it should be added. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I think that MOS:QUOTE is largely concerned with copying written text and doesn't consider transcription of spoken statements. I agree that this guidance would make sense, but only when quoting from an audio or video source, or from an unambiguously literal transcription of such a source (e.g. a court transcription). Such quotations should only be used very rarely, as they're likely primary sources, but it would be reasonable to, e.g., quote from Roger Ebert's video-recorded review in an article about a film. pburka (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Isn't this already covered in the second sentence of ⁋2 in MOS:PMC?

Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm and hmm).

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
<non admin closure> This has been, as expected, a passionate discussion, at least from the part of those opposing any inclusion of the term UK in a place's determinants as demonstrated by the strength of their language: Contributors find such an inclusion to be "excessive" (GhostInTheMachine), "superfluous and redundant" (No Great Shaker), an "abomination" (Imaginatorium), "ridiculous" (Tony1, JG66), "unnecessary" (Nagualdesign), "absurd" (Ghmyrtle), and so on.
Those who clearly support the inclusion of the term are 11 participants (Vaze50, DeFacto, Chipmunkdavis, Johnbod, Calidum, Oknazevad, Sgconlaw, FOARP, Bretonbanquet, Fyunck, Timrollpickering) and those clearly opposing it are 17 (Jackattack1597, BarrelProof, GhostInTheMachine, No Great Shaker, Imaginatorium, MB, Tony1, JG66, Nagualdesign, WereSpielChequers, Girth Summit, pburka, Spy-cicle, Alanscottwalker, BeenAroundAWhile, Keith D, Ghmyrtle). Two participants suggested we "allow [the term] but not require it" (MapReader, Amakuru).
Another one (S Marshall) opined that this issue is among those that "require editorial judgment and discretion" and " not a...poorly-attended discussion on the MOS pages" that comes up "with a half-assed diktat." (I find the assessment of the discussion attendance to be inaccurate, if not unfair: The previous RfC on the issue of having "UK" in infoboxes attracted some 29-30 participants in all, which is the same number as in this RfC, and no one complained then abt "poor attendance.")
No specific sources, or at least a robust assessment of what sources do on this issue, were cited by either side in support of their respective positions. Opinions were presented as based on editors' knowledge and assessment of the issue. Proceeding to an examination of sources and resolving this issue on such a basis would perhaps be viewed as a useful course.
However, the two major Anglophone countries are the United States and the UK. It would be quite rare indeed to see a place in the US being referred to by a US source with the end-term "US." Respectively rare would be to see in a UK source the term "UK." This is the English-language Wikipedia, and in any case we're supposed to use sources for our decisions, but sourcing in this case would probably prove to be not of much help. (In this context, it would be interesting, if not helpful, to know the provenance of contributors on each side!)
In view of all the above, it seems best to close this RfC with a decision of no consensus. The closer expresses the personal wish that the question is tabled once again in the near future, preferably not as a strict RfC but as an invitation to an open and informal discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


The last attempt to resolve this issue ended in silence. User:Spy-cicle has insisted that a consensus must be reached here before adding "UK" to the end of location fields, which it is clearly obvious to do. There is no other member state of the United Nations whose location is subject to this same argument. We can see the potential application of political bias from people here - is is obvious that only including one of "England/Scotland/Wales" is as controversial as only including "UK" after a particular city. Why then do we allow the sole inclusion of "England/Scotland/Wales" as opposed to the very fair compromise of having "England/Scotland/Wales, UK"? If an editor were to be suggesting the removal of "England/Scotland/Wales" altogether, that would be rightly controversial. Yet some users are able to maintain that status quo, which suits them, which sees "UK" removed altogether.

We can see that the discussion here ended in absolutely no agreement. Several users in that discussion, including User:GoodDay, User:EEng, User:koavf, User:DeFacto, indicated a clear preference for the inclusion both of "England/Scotland/Wales" as well as "UK". This is clearly a fair compromise, unlike the current situation that sees "UK" completely removed (imagine if we suggested the complete removal of England/Scotland/Wales).

Given that User:Spy-cicle currently has his preferred position (the expunging of "UK" from any article) included as default, this seems like an incredibly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Compromise ought to be reached, and I would be grateful for guidance on this point. Vaze50 (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 A good point, my apologies, I both could and should have referred to NI above - my own oversight. I personally take the same view given by the user below, that if it is in the UK, which NI unambiguously is (and to acknowledge this does not deny the politics that exist around the topic), then "UK" or "United Kingdom" ought to be included. Vaze50 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Vaze50, I support requiring "United Kingdom" to be included as a minimum requirement for each location within the UK - it is the only sovereign state covering this area after all, and is equivalent to US, France, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, etc. Any sub-division, such as E, NI, S or W or county names, etc. should, I think, only be included if they are required for disambiguation and only if there is a local consensus to include them.
The main point of the location data is surely to pinpoint a place within the world in the most efficient way, and the sovereign state is the internationally accepted primary sub-division of the world for that. This fundamental requirement should not be hijacked to push any political agenda. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Martinevans123, using the principles of efficiency and specificity, I'd say only include the county if it is essential for disambiguation of the location within the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. But very many BLP articles for British people include county, where no disambiguation is needed, and I feel no compelling desire to remove them. I sometimes wish MoS was clearer, as currently there is no specific advice about counties. I've always regarded them as the equivalent of US States, even though there's a big size difference. But I think Vaze50 sees the constituent counties of the UK as the equivalent of the US states, rather than as countries in their own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
To clarify Martinevans123, I do accept that E/S/W/NI are not the equivalent of US states in most respects. In a purely literal sense it is true that they are subdivisions of a sovereign state, but the state of California doesn't have international sports teams, its own 'national anthem' etc. I accept therefore that a reasonable compromise would include both the UK country in question as well as the UK at the end. I do not think it is right or fair that "UK" is the only sovereign state in the world that is airbrushed entirely out of location fields. If I was being totally single-minded about it, I'd recommend the removal of E/S/W/NI, but I accept that this would not be met with general approval. I think the most reasonable compromise would be a practice of: City/Town/Village, County (only when necessary, large cities e.g. London, Birmingham, Glasgow clearly don't benefit from having a county attached), E/S/W/NI, UK. In this way, we include the constituent country of the UK (and I am happy to accept that removing them would be unacceptable to some) AND the sovereign state of the UK, reversing the current situation where the UK is the only sovereign state not allowed to be on location fields in infoboxes. Does that sound reasonable? Vaze50 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. But I'm aware there are probably as many editor preferences over this as there are possible combinations. By the way most of the largest cities in England can't have a county attached as they are Unitary Authorities. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Vaze50: You've only pinged editors who appear to have agreed with your position in the earlier discussion. It's only right then that everyone should be invited back (if you'd just mentioned them by name above, that would be different). JG66 (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
JG66 By all means, the more the merrier. I didn't include every single editor who agreed with my position in that earlier discussion, only a number, I also included one who did not, but the bigger the discussion the better - will hopefully mean an agreement can be reached. Vaze50 (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaze50, that's good to hear. So if you could now ping all the others, it would be much appreciated. You say you included an editor who did not agree with your position, but I'm referring to your statement: "Several users in that discussion, including User:GoodDay, User:EEng, User:koavf, User:DeFacto, indicated a clear preference for the inclusion both of "England/Scotland/Wales" as well as "UK". This is clearly a fair compromise ... [my emphasis]." Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • GhostInTheMachine, in the international context though (and remember the audience of this work is wider than just the UK), "England" is not equivalent to a sovereign state or country, and that it is only the sovereign state (i.e. United Kingdom) that is internationally recognised. The addition of "England", a sub-division of a sovereign state is inefficient and totally unnecessary to identify the location precisely and concisely. To locate Blackpool precisely, all that we need is "Blackpool, United Kingdom" (or "Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom" if there is another "Blackpool" in the UK which it might be mistaken for), so why complicate and confuse infobox contents with the clutter of totally superfluous and redundant bloat? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, that is not entirely correct to claim that "in the international world England does not have the status of a country." That really only applies to diplomatic and other official relations between the states and their governments. In other settings, England and the other UK countries most certainly are considered as countries, not only domestically but internationally as well. In international trade/commerce, for example: imports are very commonly labeled "product of England" or "product of Scotland" without any mention of UK. Another example, when sending mail to, say, somewhere in England, internationally, there's no requirement to write "UK" - writing England for the country is all that's needed. That is not the case with either US states or Canadian Provinces, even when mailing between Canada and the states, they require on a separate line below everything else to be written either 'Canada' or 'USA' (and even after both countries coordinated their state/province abbreviations so that no state or province used the same two letters as any state or province in the othercountry). Sorry for the long winded reply. Just pointing out that there is a difference that can be objectively quantified that is unique to the UK cases. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • GhostInTheMachine I respectfully disagree with you that adding UK or United Kingdom is excessive. The UK's status is an unusual one, often referred to as you know as "a country of countries". Personally I would favour the approach recommended by DeFacto, in that "Blackpool, United Kingdom/Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom" would be easily sufficient. However, recognising the rather unusual situation of the UK, I think "Blackpool, England, UK" or "Blackpool, Lancashire, England, UK" is not excessive, but rather a perfectly reasonable compromise. As it currently stands, the UK is the only sovereign state that is not included in the location field, and this does not seem reasonable or fair. One way or the other, I think the case for the inclusion of "United Kingdom" (or shortened to UK for the sake of space, which is reasonable) is overwhelming. Does that sound reasonable to you? Vaze50 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not the best example folks, as Blackpool is no longer in Lancashire. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It is, just only the ceremonial county but yes we would normally use "Location", "Parish", "District", "County", "England" when identifying places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I am missing something but aren't England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland countries? Which makes them equivalent to Australia, US, Canada, Russia, etc. The UK would be more equivalent to something like the old Soviet bloc (ie a group of countries).
In any case, we only need to give enough information to the reader so that they have a reasonable chance of knowing where it is. Readers from the other side of the world should not be expected to know where all the shires are in the UK (I'm Australian and I certainly don't know many UK shires and I wouldn't expect most Asian or American readers to know them). But most of these same readers should be comfortable with just the country, even if they think it is a far away, exotic, country. Adding 'UK' just makes it more verbose.  Stepho  talk  10:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Stepho-wrs England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not the equivalent of Australia, Canada etc., because they belong within a single unitary sovereign state, the UK. What you're suggesting would be more like adding "European Union" to the end of locations (of course the UK is no longer in the EU so that wouldn't apply here, but I hope you understand the point). It's because England etc. aren't the equivalent of Australia, Canada etc., that this issue arises. Vaze50 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm still confused. I look at the England, Scotland and Wales pages and they all say "XXX is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" (my emphasis). If Scotland (for example) is a country then it is equivalent to Australia, which is also a country. It is also equivalent to France, even though France is also a part of the EU. However, the Northern Ireland page doesn't say that it is a country.
Just in case my pinion was misread, I'm not suggesting we add something, I'm suggesting that we stop at the country level because our readers know what a country is, most of them know those countries in particular and have got the point by then without more verbiage. The same way that we don't say France, EU.  Stepho  talk  12:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Stepho-wrs, Australia, Canada and France are so-called "sovereign states", and there is a list of all of them here, and that means they have sovereignty over a given geographical area and international recognition for that. You'll notice that neither England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales is in that list, that's because they are not recognised internationally as independent states. The sovereign state that covers them, and so is equivalent to Australia, Canada and France is the United Kingdom, which is in that list. Using "England" as a 'country' is similar to using sub-parts of Australia such as "Victoria" and "Tasmania", or "Saskatchewan" or "Manitoba" from Canada. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Stepho-wrs I understand where you're coming from, and I would agree that adding "EU" at the end of, say, "Paris, France" would be unnecessary. However the EU is a supranational organisation, and the UK is a sovereign state - like France. Indeed it is exactly because France (the sovereign state that Paris is located within) is included after Paris that I think surely somewhere like London ought to have the UK added after it. To put it more simply, London is the capital city of both England and the UK. It seems bizarre to me that within a location field we can have "London, England" without controversy but not either "London, UK" or "London, England, UK". I accept that it can be a bit confusing when you see on the article that "England is a country", however there is no government of England for instance, which is a pretty basic requirement for a country. There is a UK Government instead, because the UK is the sovereign state. It is on that basis that I strongly recommend the inclusion of "UK" within location fields on relevant infoboxes - does that make sense? Vaze50 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, I acknowledge that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states. But I find it very hard to accept that England, Scotland and Wales are not countries - at least according to WP's own articles, the Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. But whether or not they are sovereign states is irrelevant. They are countries that are known around the world in their own right. Adding 'UK' is therefore not necessary and only adds clutter.  Stepho  talk  04:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Words can have multiple definitions and meanings. There are a variety of places that are known in their own right (eg. London), but consistency is useful to a reader, and so giving locations in a consistent pattern is also useful, rather than being unnecessary or clutter. CMD (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Stopping at the country level is the best way to specify the location of a place. England is a country, so towns and villages in England would be specified as being located in England. The reference to "sovereign states" is not relevant to locations — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • GhostInTheMachine Would you accept that E/S/W/NI are not typical countries given their status, and are not the direct equivalents of, say, France or Germany? As such, is it not fair to include BOTH E/S/W/NI as well as UK, so that this encyclopaedia is not taking a potentially political stance of removing the country that E/S/W/NI are within? Vaze50 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Typical or untypical does not matter - England is a country. ..., England, UK for a location is still absurd — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • GhostInTheMachine, England isn't a country recognised by the UN, it is a constituent part of the UK - and the UK is recognised, and indeed is a founder member of the UN. All places in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can rightly be addressed as being in the country of the United Kingdom, without the need to mention which of the constituent countries they are also in. The sub-country is irrelevant as far as the location of a UK place is concerned. Also, amongst those that do not fully understand the structure of the UK, "England" is often erroneously used when the "United Kingdom" is meant, which could be considered offensive by British people, especially those from one of the other three constituent countries. All in all, "UK" alone is the safest bet, if we are to avoid "England, UK", "Northern Ireland, UK", "Scotland. UK" and "Wales, UK". -- DeFacto (talk). 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of UK. Adding UK is both superfluous and redundant. If Americans want to say "England, UK" in articles about non-British subjects – fine. But, if the article is within the remit of Template:Use British English, then British convention must apply and we use county first and then country to clarify – never UK. For example, Churchill was born at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire. However, an overseas reader might not know where Oxfordshire is so we're happy with Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, England. In fact, removal of the country would be downright insulting to many, probably most, British citizens. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
No Great Shaker, what's your logic for requiring the inclusion the superfluous sub-division of the sovereign country - which probably isn't even fully understood within the UK - and excluding the name of the sovereign country itself - which is the only name recognised at the international level? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see what it is that you fail to understand. British people do not use UK. They use their country. A Scottish person will say they come from Aberdeen, for example. If someone asks where Aberdeen is, they will say Scotland, never UK (okay, they might say Britain depending on the situation). UK is not a country, it is a state which consists of four individual countries. And please don't assume that British people do not understand living in the UK and its component countries. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm just glad no-one has mentioned the Isle of Man yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Ha! Or the Channel Islands. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, you say UK is the only name recognised internationally? What about sport, for example? I can't think of one international team that is called UK (tell me if there is one). No Great Shaker (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
No Great Shaker I would dispute the point you make in your final paragraph - "British people do not use UK...they use their country". The UK is the correct term for the country, it is a unitary sovereign state, a founding member state of the United Nations, and is therefore, I would suggest, very reasonable to include on this basis. The logic you apply here would suggest that we should also remove "U.S." from the location field of appropriate boxes and replace with "America" - after all, very few Americans would say they come from "the U.S." over simply saying "America". However, the U.S. is the technically correct term, and as this is intended to be an encyclopaedia, I don't agree that we should apply an arbitrary approach based on what some people might or might not say. On that basis, I think the inclusion of "UK" after E/S/W/NI is perfectly reasonable as a compromise. I am certainly not suggesting throwing out E/S/W/NI. I don't agree that identifying the sovereign state of a location (when this is done in all other cases) is superfluous. Vaze50 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaze50, UK is not a country, that is the point. The countries are England, Scotland, Wales and NI. The UK is a political entity – a sovereign state, if you like. It does not follow that British convention should apply to the US and I would oppose any proposal to alter American convention. Also, per the points made below, could you please fromally define your proposal somewhere above? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
No Great Shaker I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your assessment above - there are a huge number of "lists of countries" on this encyclopaedia, as there are many different criteria by which one could list a country, and in the overwhelming majority it is the United Kingdom that is referred to in these lists, not E/S/W/NI. Whilst it is true that E/S/W/NI are referred to as countries in many respects, this doesn't change the fact that the UK is itself also a country. The phrase "country of countries" has been employed outside of this website to describe the UK, but even if we stick to this website alone, the fact that the vast majority of "lists of countries" articles include the UK (not E/S/W/NI) I think provide a suitable basis for disagreeing with your comments there.
My proposal is to add UK to all infobox location fields where the location is within the UK, as simple as that. I certainly do not propose to remove E/S/W/NI - to be frank with you, I would be happy to see them removed and replaced with United Kingdom, but I fully recognise that compromise is required and it wouldn't be fair to try to impose that on articles when clearly the status of countries within the UK is complex at best. Therefore I think the most suitable (and informative) compromise is to include simply "UK" wherever E/S/W/NI is used. My reasons for doing so is that all other sovereign states are referred to within the relevant location fields, and it would seem to be unfair to be prioritising the use of E/S/W/NI over UK - as a fair compromise, I think both should be included, and I cite the example of Derry/Londonderry as where, on this website, there has been a recognition of similar. I hope I've made that clear, but please let me know if I can clarify further. Vaze50 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep/add UK, this is an international encyclopaedia read by many who will not know what is or isn't part of the UK. Removing it is removing helpful information for readers for no benefit. Don't particularly see much difference as to whether United Kingdom is spelt out or UK is used for space reasons. Responses against the removal of Eng/Sco/Wal/NI seem misplaced, that doesn't appear to be proposed. CMD (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe the proposal needs to be clearly defined. The individual countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are known globally and the addition of UK is superfluous. However, you may have a point about the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
They are known globally, but equally the states of New York and California are known globally, and yet they are included along with "U.S." in the equivalent infoboxes. Whilst it's true that a US state and a UK country are not exactly the same thing, they are both subdivisions of a larger sovereign state, and it would I think be appropriate and useful to include, as well as a fair compromise. At the moment, including only E/S/W/NI feels like a politically biased outcome, unintended or otherwise, whereas to include both is a reasonable compromise. Think the Derry/Londonderry debate - strong feelings about both, and so both are used. It makes the articles longer than they would otherwise be, but it is a fair compromise for a potentially sensitive issue. Vaze50 (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. They are not the same thing. England is a country, California is a state, British and American conventions are different. It may be an American convention to always say "London, England, UK" but it is not a British convention and articles about British subjects must comply with Use British English. "England, UK" is absolutely not part of British English. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No Great Shaker You have asserted that it is "not part of British English" and "not a British convention" but would you please be able to point me to where the guidance is on this website that British English dictates UK ought not to be added after England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I have gone through it and have not been able to find any advice one way or the other. If that is the case, it would appear to be assertion, rather than guidance, and there would be no compromise with British English to include the UK. Indeed the fact that the British English article begins by referencing the United Kingdom first and foremost, I think that rather demonstrates the point that UK would be worth adding to these location fields! Vaze50 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also a strong citation needed for "known globally". The amount of times I have had to explain what Northern Ireland is... CMD (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No Great Shaker, don't be casting aspersions on us Americans :P. It most definitely is not an American convention to always say "London, England, UK". (in the case of London it is pretty much always just London). For other cities in England, it is typically either just England or just UK; never both. England is more common. We never write "England, UK" or "Scotland, UK." Northern Ireland might get UK tacked onto it sometimes...not sure. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • We in the UK have had an "oven ready" Brexit and we know that "EU" is not a real place. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don’t see that as a parallel. Parallels might be “Dogsville, California, USA” or “Oompahberg, Bavaria, Germany” MapReader (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, no, there is no parallel there. The EU is not a sovereign state, it is a trading bloc of member states, each of which is an independent sovereign state. On the other hand, the United Kingdom is a sovereign state which comprises four, non-sovereign, constituent countries. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Blueboar I would like to emphasise the point made above by both MapReader and DeFacto - the EU not only isn't a sovereign state but doesn't claim to be, it is a supranational organisation, which only sovereign states can join. Indeed the very fact that it was the UK that was a member of the EU until recently, rather than England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being members separately, demonstrates why it is the UK that is the country those four are located in, and why I and others here believe it ought to be included within location fields in infoboxes, do you think that is fair? Vaze50 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Please explain what is obvious about it. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "England, UK" is an abomination. There are various laboured arguments above about the status of the United Kingdom as a "sovereign state" (indeed, only recently having regained its sovereignty back from the EU according to one popular opinion), but we are talking about explaining where somewhere is. None of the four constituent nations of the UK is obscure, and none is ambiguous, so "Scotland" is sufficient to identify where something is. Geography is not just about "sovereign nations": there are many cases, such as remote offshore bits of France, where giving the "sovereign nation" (i.e. "France", for an island in the Pacific) is quite misleading. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Imaginatorium "Abomination" is a bit strong I think, considering England is unambiguously within the UK! The cities of London or Edinburgh are not obscure, and are not ambiguous, why therefore isn't "London" or "Edinburgh" sufficient to identify the birth/death place of somebody? The reason "England/Scotland" are added (but not UK, the sovereign nation these cities are located) seems to be political, frankly! Offshore areas are less of a problem for the UK - Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are not technically within the UK, so the issue simply does not arise. Vaze50 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Elsewhere you ask if you are being clear enough - yes, you are crystal clear, but you are simply wrong. You believe (presumably not being British) that British people should say this or that, but they do not. Of course England is unambiguously within the UK, and is also unambiguously within Europe, and unambiguously on the third planet from the sun, but any of these would be superfluous after it. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep UK. If it is necessary to include U.S., Canada and Australia inside infoboxes (see Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau and Scott Morrison), why shouldn't UK be included? -- Calidum 19:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary Infoboxes are supposed to convey "key" information "at a glance". The country (e.g. England, Scotland) is more than sufficient for the reader to understand the location. That's all the infobox is for. No need to specify UK in thousands or tens of thousands of articles, that is pedantic (overly concerned with minute details or formalisms).
Above comment added by MB.
MB Why in that case do we even add England/Scotland/Wales etc.? Surely "London" would be sufficient enough (for example)? But every other infobox includes city/town etc., followed by country - England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are not ordinary countries, they are within a wider sovereign state, the UK. It only seems fair to me that both are included, and we are hardly crowding the infobox by adding two letters, are we? Vaze50 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't remove. No need to reinforce systemic boas by engaging in special pleading. Only the UK is a sovereign country. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "England, UK" is just ridiculous. Use either, not both. Readers of English know what both mean. It's time not to clutter our text—especially in infoboxes—with superflous divisions/subdivisions/super-categories. Same for the ridiculous "New York, New York". Same for "Chicago, Illinois" et al.: when well-known, we can dispense with using WP like a postal envelope. Tony (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep UK (and US, etc.) for consistency and because it may be a skewed (perhaps Western or developed-country) perspective to assume that all Wikipedia readers, including those in Africa and Asia, know that England is part of the UK. Indeed, it is not an uncommon misconception for “England” to be used to refer to the whole of the UK (and “Holland” for the Netherlands). Avoiding ambiguity is to be preferred for an encyclopedia. Also, if some sovereign nations are omitted, there will inevitably be further discussions about which other cities or regions are so well-known that their sovereign nations can also be omitted (Paris? Kuala Lumpur? Rabat? Rio de Janeiro?) — SGconlaw (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep UK where it is and do not remove. Only the UK is the internationally recognised state, if it's been included this is likely for some reason and other editors should not WP:POINTedly try to remove it. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s not quite so simple... Margaret Thatcher once quipped that when she attended international conferences, the country she represented depended on who she needed to speak with. If she needed to speak with Ronald Reagan, she would ask to be seated as “United Kingdom”... if she wanted to speak with Mubarak of Egypt, she would ask to be seated as “England”... if she wanted to speak to the President of Greece, she would ask to be seated as “Great Britain”... and if she wanted to speak to someone from Angola she could ask for the seating to be in French, so she could be from “Angleterre”. Blueboar (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Never both England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland and UK. To quote Tony1, it looks ridiculous. I'd go further and say it's makes Wikipedia look utterly stupid. That's not to dismiss concerns here about standardising with the approach for other countries – I'm just coming from a Brit (English/Scottish) perspective. It might be an idea to notify the likes of WP:UK and WP:GEOGRAPHY, and start an RfC about this. JG66 (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware the UK countries are normally recognized alone and we usually only have UK in infoboxes. Canada and the US aren't the same since they don't have any constitute countries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale - As a note, and not as a particular argument in either direction, Quebec is a "nation" of Canada, and various Native American "nations" are contained within the United States. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s cute that you guys call them countries, but England is no more sovereign than California (and at least California has its own government). -- Calidum 19:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
"England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." It seems Wikipedia is equally cute? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't see any indication that Quebec is a nation of Canada, its a province similar to Cornwall or Essex being counties of England. England indeed isn't a sovereign state, the UK is, if you asked someone what country Mansfield is in you would probably get "England" but if you asked them what sovereign state you would get UK. I'd note with Cornwall it has its own language unlike California (though there is mention at Uto-Aztecan languages it appears to refer to a region not a named language) see also Cornish nationalism. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
See Québécois nation motion and also various acts of the Quebec legislature during the early 2000's when it was dominated by BQ/PQ (e.g., renaming the legislature as the "national" assembly and Quebec City as the "national" capital). Like I said, I don't think this is really an argument either way but it is not really true to say that no other country contains countries/nations/whatever. Even Germany contains the "Free State" of Bavaria. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
All German states are countries (Lander) within a country (Land) too. A similar history of established entities uniting. The translation just hasn't carried over into English. CMD (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, this OCED report apparently is not embarrassed by referring to "England (UK)" multiple times,[11] so it's probably easy to get over feeling "ridiculous" or "stupid", or maybe feeing "ridiculous" or "stupid" about such a thing is a sign of taking oneself much too seriously. And it seems very doubtful that people in the USA would customarily refer to "Manchester, NH, USA", anymore than those in the UK would use UK in their national customs, but the pedia is written for others not in the USA, nor in the UK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep UK and do not remove. Systematic removal of UK from infoboxes by certain editors is rife, sometimes alongside changing "British" to "English" for any BLP where the subject was born in England, without any verification. This often leaves articles without a single mention of the UK, Britain or British anywhere in it. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may be described as countries, but they are not countries in the sense that any other country is a country. The UK is the sovereign state, whether we like it or not; whether it "looks ridiculous" or not. Some people here would be stunned to learn just how many people in the world have no idea that England is not independent, or that it is part of the UK. This is an encyclopedia, which exists to inform. We don't omit information because it "looks ridiculous" or because local editors feel it is redundant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the unnecessary use of "UK" or "United Kingdom". While the constituent countries of the UK may not be sovereign states it's ridiculous to say that they're not internationally recognized. Anyone from anywhere in the world with a modicum of education surely knows where "London, England" or "Edinburgh, Scotland" is, for example. Appending that with "UK" will not help our readers better understand anything, and removing mention of the country certainly won't help. The fact is that the UK's status as a 'country of countries' is unusual, so all these comparisons to the US, Australia or anywhere else are moot. For people who already understand that the UK is a sovereign nation, appending "UK" serves little purpose, and for people who don't understand it, it means nothing. nagualdesign 20:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of UK. As stated by others, to a British user, a formula like "Manchester, England, UK" would be absurd. Let's stick to British style on British articles. There is no need to base the decision on "sovereign states" - what is necessary for readers is the internationally known country, and that is E W S or NI. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't see how that is tenable. In Singapore it is common for all titles (e.g., President, Prime Minister, Chairman) to be capitalized, but I don't see Wikipedia taking a country-by-country approach to an issue like that in its articles. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, as far as I know, the "British style" is to exclude the constituent country name, and just add "UK". You only have to look at non-partisan online sources of addresses to see that - try Royal Mail's postcode finder or the Sainsbury's store finder, for example. Try typing "Drum" into the store finder, and it'll offer stores from across the UK matching that, and you'll see that whether they are in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales is not mentioned, they just end "UK". I couldn't think of a string to bring up a place in each of the four home nations, but "Drum" finds stores in three of them: NI, E and S. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
See also here. We can all cherry-pick examples either way to our hearts' content, without making much progress. What is most important is what our readers will want and understand. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, that's not a typical address list though. As we know, the UK's four constituent countries compete independently in the Commonwealth Games, unlike at the Olympics or most other international sports where a single UK team competes. So, of course, they will be identified separately. Look at the teams' own websites though, and notice how even there, their contact addresses (E, S, W and NI) all end with their UK postcode, with no mention of their individual constituent country names. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove UK where we can go to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland per ENGVAR. This is the English language Wikipedia and we can assume that most of our readers are familar with such concepts as Scotland and England. Other language versions may choose to do things differently - someone mentioned German Lander, and on DE wiki you could expect a greater understanding of Lander. ϢereSpielChequers 11:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Usually just write England/Scotland/Wales/NI I'm not advocating a great bot-led purge or anything, but in general I think that just giving England, Scotland or whatever is better than just giving UK, in that it more closely reflects the way that people usually refer to places, and that it's more precise; conversely, I think that giving both is just silly. I get that Britain is a bit of an outlier internationally in having countries within a country, and consistency is all well and good, but we don't strive for uniformity and we should go with what reads better. FWIW, I would no more write 'Perth, Western Australia, Australia' than I would write 'Perth, Scotland, UK'. There are probably particular circumstances where it would make sense to use UK, that could be discussed case by case. GirthSummit (blether) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - infobox parameters/usage: For articles that are relevant to sovereign state such as government bodies for example Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Secret Intelligence Service and MI5, etc.. inclusion of UK in the infobox would seem reasonable. The inclusion of UK in a infobox would seem reasonable when a company/organization, etc.. provides goods/services to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. {{Infobox company}} has parameters for |location= and |area_served= as used in Rekom UK with "Headquarters" in England and "Area served" as UK. {{Infobox organization}} has a parameter for |headquarters= (|location_country= is never used) and parameters |area_served=, |region_served= and |region= that label using that wording. Examples are General Medical Council with "Headquarters" in London and "Region" as UK and Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom) with "Region" as UK and "Location" as London using |location=. {{Infobox union}} is an example of an infobox that doesn't have a area/region served parameter for example Dental Laboratories Association covers all UK it uses |office= and |country= with UK in both. UK is normally in the MOS:LEAD for government bodies/companies/organizations that cover all UK. High use infoboxes are in bold in the WP:IB list. |country= is used in film, book, television, {{Infobox station}}, building, {{Infobox venue}} and mountain. Place such as |birth_place= is used in musical artist, football biography, military person, writer, officeholder, person, artist and sportsperson. Airport uses |location=. Military unit is high use and uses UK for country. {{Infobox UK place}} automatically inserts Sovereign state for United Kingdom an example is Belfast. {{Infobox settlement}} is a high use infobox for cities, towns,etc.. but I assume {{Infobox UK place}} is mostly used. Although London uses {{Infobox settlement}}, which supports customized labels, using Sovereign state for United Kingdom and Country for England the same as {{Infobox UK place}}.--Melbguy05 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • One size does not fit all so I very strongly oppose making a single rule to cover all cases. In most contexts using either E/W/S/NI or UK is fine and perfectly understandable by the significant majority of the readers (which is the only reasonable goal to aim for) but sometimes using both will be preferable. Whether to use constituent country, UK or both will depend entirely on the subject matter, for example a footballer whose primary notability is playing for one of the E/W/S/NI national teams and politicians from a nationalist party using the relevant constituent country is usually going to be the most meaningful, while for central government departments and UK-wide organisations and people prominently associated with them "UK" is probably usually best. Using, e.g. "Wales, UK" is probably best in only a few cases but organisations of devolved assemblies might be one example. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it's used it should always be "United Kingdom", not "UK". We should always prefer the full term rather than an abbreviation that looks tacked onto the end. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Curious about this stance. Do you also advocate for the change of infoboxes in regards to say "U.S" to "United States".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Always add UK - In an infobox you want it to be all apples, not apples and oranges. The nation is UK or United Kingdom, not England or Northern Ireland. You might as well just leave things as California instead of saying Los Angeles, California, USA. For a person like president McKinley we put in Niles, Ohio, U.S., not just Niles, Ohio. That's they way it should always be to be consistent. If you want to change all Wikipedia article to not include the country, we can do that, but we need to be consistant and not have some special rule for just with UK. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    But England, Wales, and Scotland are all countries to begin with unlike US states. So having just is Niles, Ohio is not comparable to say Bristol, England as the latter includes the country whilst the former does not.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • UK is usually unnecessary. The point of info boxes to to briefly and concisely communicate key information about a topic. When identifying someone's birthplace, we need just enough information so that most people can recognize it easily: details about the political structure are irrelevant unless the info box is about a political topic. It might be helpful to write Isle of Man, UK, as I suspect many people don't know where it is, but I feel that it's unnecessary to write England, UK, and probably confusing to write Gibraltar, UK, as that might suggest that Gibraltar is geographically close to the British Isles. If we're looking for international comparisons, I surveyed some info boxes and found that we use Netherlands Antilles (rather than Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands), Greenland (rather than Greenland, Denmark), and Hong Kong (rather than Hong Kong, China or Hong Kong, United Kingdom). pburka (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It wouldn't be "helpful" to write "Isle of Man, UK" as the Isle of Man isn't part of the United Kingdom. If you want to say where it is then "Isle of Man, British Isles" would work though I don't think we should routinely do that. 213.137.16.211 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes a UK 'country' distinct from a Canadian province or a US state? Is "California, US" or "Quebec, Canada" an acceptable construction? If yes, then "Scotland, UK" should be too. If no, then it shouldn't be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I want to preface how this discussion since I have been misrepsresented. Vaze50 first went about adding "UK" in infoboxes intially without edit summaries to high-profile UK articles ([12],[13] (strangely changing "English" to "British" but that is a discussion for another time) [14] (in addition to removing counties but that is also a discussion for another time), then doing the same for 27 others articles vaguely citing "MOS:BIRTHPLACE" which does not say anything about the matter. I and other reverted the edits and notified Vaze on Vaze's talk page. The user in question then bad faith accussed me being an "English nationlist" (I know exactly where people like you come at this issue from. You're an English nationalist intention keeping the word "UK" away from articles, where it belongs (as with all other countries) because of your political bias) [15] (fortunately the user has since striked the comment). I have not "insisted that a consensus must be reached here before adding "UK" to the end of location fields" I have insisted if it is going to be changed en masse. There are articles currently which do have "UK" at the end but I have not gone out of my way to "expunge" them. I have been maintaining the infomal status quo that either way is allowed but should not be changed on mass. On to the actual content...
  • I think that generally speaking we should just be using England/Wales/Scotland (neutral on Northern Ireland given its more complicated geopolitical status) in infoboxes as I and others have laid in the previous discussion. It seems unnecssary we are general purpose English encylopedia we are not expected to teach every reader the obvious that England is in the UK, it is irrelevant that it is not a "sorverign state". Country is perfectly sufficent. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Reading some of these comments, one is left to wonder in astonishment why Wikipedia prominently identifies that the UK's London is in the UK (as does Britannica, [16]), and a Canadian London as being in Canada (as does Britannica). Perhaps, any remotely useful general interest encyclopedia in the English language would seem to do so (quite apart from any personal feelings anyone has). The same is true for England in Wikipedia being prominently identified as being in the UK (accord, Britannica). There seems simply no logic to not explicitly identifying these places as being in the UK, regardless of what anyone personally feels about what is unnecessary, or what is obvious -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • London, England, is London, England. It's not London, Ontario. For heaven's sakes, why should we argue about such self-evident nomenclature? England is England; it's not England, Europe, Eastern Hemisphere, Earth . . . . and on and on. Sheesh! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove UK as unnecessary it just inflates the location field and is totally unnecessary, England/Northern Ireland/Scotland or Wales is sufficiant to identify the place, especially as they are a country in their own right. Keith D (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep/add UK per arguments above. I think we need to get away from exceptionalism and straight out include the sovereign state as standard default. We don't do this for other countries within countries and such cases do exist even if the English translations don't always carry forward the terms. We shouldn't be making exceptions just because the term "country" is used for multiple levels or confusing readers who often don't understand the arrangements. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • To my awareness most of the other non-English Wikipedias do no generally use "United Kingdom" in text at least not for England, Scotland and Wales. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The names that may sound like England are used for the whole UK. For example Yingguo zh:英国 in Chinese is used for the whole UK (full name 大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国 or shorter 联合王国). England is Yinggelan 英格兰. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep UK: The examples stating England as a country don't consider that England doesn't have its own parliament: it uses the whole UK Parliament. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove UK Tony (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Struck off double suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Permit UK, but don't require it. This is one of those cases where having formal rules doesn't benefit the project. We've been doing fine for 20 years with an ad hoc and article by article approach, depending on the context, and that should continue.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, permit UK, but don't require it. The fact that there's an occasional editing war over this relatively trivial detail is not in itself sufficient justification for imposing a policy affecting zillions of articles (and that will probably create even more edit wars, for a prolonged period). Practice on geographical naming already varies, often sensibly depending on context - for example American cities are more commonly, but far from always, followed by their state; where this is omitted, often this is sensible (for example where it can be implied from the context). IF there is a ruling, it makes no sense to make one for use of "UK" alone; we'd need a fully comprehensive policy that can be applied to geographies across the world, so that the usage in each particular case has some sort of overarching logic. MapReader (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This is nuanced. We're talking about an archipelago with a long history, and there are a lot of historical topics that discuss an England, Scotland, Wales, or Ireland that pre-dated the United Kingdom; there are also current topics where adding "UK" is an essential piece of disambiguation. These things require editorial judgment and discretion in each case, and the absolute last thing we need is for a poorly-attended discussion on the Manual of Style pages to come up with a half-assed diktat on the matter out of some misplaced need to regulate things that shouldn't be regulated.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose UK Adding UK in addition to the country name seems unnecessary, and should not be common practice.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose saying "England, UK" or "England, United Kingdom": Appending "UK" to England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland is simply way too pedantic. In my eyes, it seems kind of WP:POINTy, as if someone is trying to sneak in some political commentary rather than simply identify a place. It feels a bit like saying "France, European Union". Personally, I also think "California, United States" is similarly silly and undesirable. We should be able to assume the readers have some basic education about the world, and if "California" is a blue link, those unfamiliar with the place can click on the link to find out what country it is in. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Close requested (UK in infoboxes)

I have requested this be formally closed at WP:Closure requests. -- Calidum 18:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Still hoping for a closure -- Calidum 01:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Done. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was I opposing? I don't think so, but yes, it's no consensus, no matter how subtle or opaque I was or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinking demonyms

I often see wikilinks used like this, particularly in article leads on people or companies:

  • is a [[Japanese people|Japanese]]
  • is a [[Japan|Japanese]] or is a [[Japan]]ese
  • is an [[Americans|American]]
  • is an [[United States|American]]
  • is an [[Indian people|Indian]]
  • is an [[India|Indian]] or is an [[India]]n, and so on

This usage reminds me of MOS:UNLINKDATES, which instructs not to link dates when they aren't relevant to the subject nor likely to be useful to a reader. Is there an existing consensus on demonym wikilinking? Thoughts on this practice? — Goszei (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I will also note that searching shows that this is somewhat of a widespread practice. The first three examples I gave appear in:
I routinely unlink these when I run across them as usually not useful in "understanding the article". MB 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
They are definitely useful to the reader if it's a demonym that few people have heard of. I'd say this is a similar question as whether or not languages should be wikilinked. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
For me, I check to see if there's a MOS:SEAOFBLUE. If there isn't one I'm content to let it stand as is, but if there is, the demonym is one of the first links to be unlinked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Only link the demonym in lede sentence if it is some very obscure nationality/ethnicity, and especially if it plays a significant role in the subject's notability. Responding to Jochem van Hees, if the subject of a people should arise in the article text (in a similar way as a language would), then I support wikilinking. This post seems to be specifically about wikilinking the demonym in the lede sentence of a biographical article. That would be ridiculous, IMO. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    That would make sense I'd say; knowing more about someone's nationality is in most cases not important for understanding the article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • These are generally not linked per MOS:OVERLINK.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

SUFFIXDASH and category names

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_20#MOS:SUFFIXDASH_moves was closed as No consensus to apply MOS:SUFFIXDASH in category names, and I inserted an exception in the MOS here.

E.g. Category:Table tennis-related lists still uses a hyphen just like Category:Tennis-related lists, despite the space in the compound name "table tennis".

Recently Good Ol'Factory invoked PREFIXDASH to retain the dash in e.g. Category:Anti–death penalty laws, since these are laws against the death penalty, not against death.[17] I'm inclined to support the status quo there, as IMHO the dash adds clarity. However, if we still want PREFIXDASH/SUFFIXDASH to apply in those cases, then I think we need to reword the exception that I wrote for category names.

How then can the exception for category names be rewritten? Is consensus only missing for a dash between a phrase and a suffix (e.g. "-related lists"), so that a dash is still required between a prefix (e.g. Anti–) and a phrase? – Fayenatic London 14:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Both of your examples here seem wrong to me. Far from making it clear that the laws are "against the death penalty, not against death", the phrase "anti-death penalty laws" seems to me to be referring to "penalty laws that are against death". And "table tennis-related" seems to tie "tennis" more tightly to "related" than to "table". --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I find it extremely implausible that anyone proficient in English could possibly misconstrue "anti-death penalty laws" as "penalty laws that are against death" - one, because the phrase "death penalty" is near universally known, and two, even if it weren't "penalty laws that are against death" is completely nonsensical. As would be "punishment laws that are against capital" (maybe in Stalinist Russia 😁). I know that was somewhat the point you are arguing, and your focus was strictly on the construction rather than the words themselves, but honestly (and this is not said to any one particular editor), these types of abstract discussions wherein no example is produced that could reasonably cause confusion somewhat seem like solutions in search of a problem. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
      • It's not so much that I misunderstand the construction, it's that it takes longer to understand it at all because it doesn't fit the patterns I expect.--Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. This seems like a hard issue to splice. It would seem unusual to me to follow MOS:PREFIXDASH but not MOS:SUFFIXDASH. It would be easier to adopt the same approach one way or the other. I was not aware that there was a recent no consensus decision on the proposal to use MOS:SUFFIXDASH in categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps my close was misguided. Normally if there is no consensus, we default to Keep. But if there's no consensus against MOS, should we instead default to apply MOS? (Any practical difficulties with dashes would easily be overcome using redirects.) – Fayenatic London 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, there clearly was no consensus in that discussion to apply the MOS, so you're not to be faulted for that. Applying the MOS as a default is an interesting suggestion, but I fear that doing that might be too controversial in discussions that fail to reach a consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - in addition to what I said above, I thought I should point out that likely more than 99% of readers have no clue about the difference between any of these kinds of dashes, and probably neither do the vast majority of editors. And the ones that do know the difference aren't going to be confused if the wrong one is used - annoyed, but not genuinely confused. I understand that fixing mjstakes is a very genuine pain in the ass, and I'm thankful to all the editors that do that kind of thing, and sympathise with their irritation that most editors can't be bothered to do these things correctly. However, I think volumes and volumes of MOS space dedicated to the proper use of dashes is largely preaching to the choir. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Black and African American

Is there guidance on preference for racial identity terms? (I assume not.) Then, is there a guidance or consensus on capitalization of Black, as in, a person's race/ethnicity? The norm on the outside seems to be big B, per the AP's decision last year. I ask because the article on Kalief Browder was recently changed from … was an African-American youth… to … was a black youth…. I don't have a preference between those terms (in this context), but my impulse was to capitalize and link "black". Just thought I'd check in here first though. — HTGS (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PEOPLANG (via this recent thread) for the caps question, no idea where to look for the Black/African-American question. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of "would" instead of simple past

You quite often see this in sports reports, e.g. "Nadal would come back and win the next three sets" instead of just "Nadal came back and won the next three sets." It seems to be mostly an American affectation, though this usage is not listed in Merriam Webster. Should the MOS be revised to indicate that simple past tense is to be preferred when reporting events? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Why? -- Calidum 02:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@MaxBrowne2, I think what Calidum is trying to say is that WP:NEWSSTYLE already suggests at this, but it doesn't always make sense to codify what a given word usage might mean in a specific context, or to a specific group of people. If you imagine that we formalised all grey—or even black and white—"informal" and formal language structures, we would quickly run out of space on the internet. — HTGS (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Nah. Also I don't know as User:Calidum is pointing to NEWSTYLE at all. Maybe Calidum's saying like "So, what would the benefit be?" For my part, I also say "why?" because I don't see a net benefit. I think it's micromanaging. Let the person doing the actual work of the project (writing articles) the freedom to do as she pleases on unimportant matters of style preference. It's a volunteer program and people come here because they enjoy writing. Being micromanaged tends to make them enjoy it less, so overall negative, as I don't think it's confusing the reader. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with none of this. (Although the term "volunteer program" has a certain amount of humour to it.) — HTGS (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I was asking why as in "why does this matter?" or "what is the point of such a change?" As you said, I don't believe the wording in question is confusing to readers, so I don't see the benefit of this. -- Calidum 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Go on, EEng, make my day!
Thank you EEng, you've made my day! :))) — Mike Novikoff 00:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yah, I don't like the "would" much (wonder when it arose). And sometimes it's ambiguous. But I agree with EEng: not necessary to legislate. Tony (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
What's the MOS for then, if not to guide people on how to write for wikipedia? We have MOS:TENSE, why not a note there to discourage misuse of "would"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It's for delineating house style -- stuff that different publications do differently for whatever reason. It's not for teaching general rules of English, unless it's proven to be a real problem here on the project for some reason. EEng 13:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's "misuse" in your opinion. That is why. Herostratus (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not incorrect: just unnecessarily complicated. The MOS already says "editors should avoid ... unnecessarily complex wording." We needn't enumerate every possible example of unnecessarily complex wording. pburka (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's "future-in-the-past"; sometimes useful to keep consistently talking about one time period, while informing the reader in passing what was going to happen in a later time period still in the past. Whether it's "unnecessarily complicated" depends on what you need to do. It is the simplest way to do that particular thing. I don't think that's a thing Wikipedia articles need to do very often, but I don't see that it's necessary to ban it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a need to mandate it in the MOS, but I already change instances of conditional perfect to simple past unless what could have happened is absolutely necessary for the article when copyediting. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • What's being discussed here is not conditional perfect, which is used for counterfactuals. It's future-in-the-past, meaning something that happens later than the running narrative, but definitely does happen. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      Ah, I used the wrong term; saw the "would have" and jumped to that. Either way, I'd change it to simple past, if only because the tone used when saying something like He would become prime minister could be simplified to He became prime minister, where the tone is more neutral. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      That's fine, if that's the next event you want to report. The problem is if he became prime minister in 1947, but the narrative being reported is in 1932 and you want to keep it in 1932, even after you tell the reader that the individual was going to become prime minister in 1947.
      Now, if you want to say that it's usually not a good idea to say what was going to happen in 1947 while you're still talking about 1932, I'm not going to argue with you. It might be usually not a good idea. But if you really do have a good reason to talk about what was going to happen in 1947 while you're still talking about 1932, I think this "would" is sort of the standard way to do it, or at least one of the standard ways to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      Agreed. I'm saying that there really isn't a good reason to report it in this tense in an encyclopedia, where the tone being used is very dry (some would say stuffy). I would use it myself when I'm constructing narratives for effect (e.g., Timmy was bullied by the mayor's son, who would come to regret it when his victim became the evil overlord of all), but again, outside the scope of an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      That's quite a creative example there, Tenryuu. EEng 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    You are describing the appropriate use of "would", the "future in the past". There is no problem with "He went to school with Winston Churchill, who would later become Prime Minister". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    It boils down to taste, which is why I don't find it necessary to mandate this in the MOS. I prefer simple past because it sounds more neutral (and tends to use at least one fewer word). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that this kind of phrasing is common when changing an article that was in future tense to past tense. Take this sentence: "On 26 December 2024, it was announced that John Smith will be a guest star on the show." After the show has happened, it is a lot easier to change the "will" to "would" than to rephrase the sentence so that it makes sense. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    Even better, of course, and something that rarely happens, is to find a source that says it actually happened. One of my pet peeves is contributers' burning desire to add something the second they hear/read/see an announcement, but never come back after the show/film release/convention/tour/whatever to properly write and cite the actual singers/actors/speakers/concert dates/whatever. The change from "will" to "would" is actually okay, when that's all we know based on the now-passé cited sources. It's just ugly writing for an encyclopedia. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    This use of would is actually somewhat different from the one under discussion. EEng 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed. Let's keep it on topic. Tony (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just for fun, though at the risk of sticking my head in the lion's mouth, here's a use of would (from John Harvard statue) that I've never been able to figure out how to replace:
    The commission weighed heavily on French even as the figure neared completion. "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime," wrote the sculptor‍—‌who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln for the Lincoln Memorial‍—‌"and a failure would be inexcusable. As a general thing, my model looks pretty well to me, but there are dark days."
It also employs what might be deemed WP:ELEVAR (wrote the sculptor), and I can't figure out how to get rid of that, either. EEng 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
One way is The sculptor, who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln for the Lincoln Memorial, wrote "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime, and a failure would be inexcusable. As a general thing, my model looks pretty well to me, but there are dark days." Whether that is an improvement is another matter.
Going back to the original question, one use of would is the imperfective aspect, e.g., habitual past. Replacing such uses with the simple past would change the meaning. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, well obviously we're looking for something that's an improvement. The problem with your suggestion is that it talks about Lincoln, apparently gratuitously, well before the reader has any idea why he's being told that. And by starting with Lincoln you make it seem like that's even the main point, instead of a subsidiary point, of where we're going. EEng 15:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
[Added later:] And your text seems to suggest that French's words refer to the Lincoln commission, not John Harvard. This is exactly the kind of situation in which would is appropriate to use, and after all this reflection I believe it's OK here; but the sculptor I'd still like to be rid of. Well, you can't win 'em all. EEng 03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
In this particular case, the easiest thing to do would be to remove the entire parenthetical thought. The lede in the article on French already mentions him creating Lincoln's statue, so an earlier wikilink to French would already provide that information. There doesn't seem to be any relevant association between the Lincoln and Harvard statues aside from sharing the same creator. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The relevant association is that the creator of Lincoln -- one of the three most famous sculptures in America -- was worried, just twenty years earlier, that John Harvard might be his most important commission ever. It's not the entire point of the passage, but it's an important part of it. EEng 00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
In that case, I'd go with The sculptor, who built the statue of Abraham Lincoln thirty years later for the Lincoln memorial, wrote [...] It's in simple past and conveys the same idea. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
That's the same as what Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz proposed. EEng 03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Except there's no "would". If the concern is that it seems like the quote is referring to the Lincoln statue, add also right before built; that should take some of the focus off of the parenthetical and convey it as more of an aside. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • So, if I've read this correctly, the question is whether or not to include, in the MOS, something along the lines of, "avoid using would except in situations where it is appropriate." Primergrey (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, let's generalize it to "avoid using something except in situations where such a thing is appropriate". EEng 02:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." ( -the Duchess) Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    A correct summary of my recommendation would be along the lines of "avoid the use of 'would' in place of a simple past tense" and then give an example such as my Nadal example above. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenating racial identities

Should the hyphen be dropped when describing ethnic groups?--Caorongjin (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems apparent that there's a large amount of inconsistency across articles concerning racial identities (e.g. Asian-American vs. Asian American). This isn't standard with other racial identities (Native American, West Indian etc.) and so I propose adding to the style guidelines a definitive consensus, taking the position that would update this in line with broader consensus as per MLA, APA, and AP style guidelines (i.e. 'African American' as opposed to 'African-American').

Sources:

Obviously I would like to foster discussion to arrive at such a consensus that establishes a definite MOS guideline regardless of my own opinion.—Plifal (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support not hyphenating I used to hyphenate when used as an adjective, but stopped when I read somewhere that 1) it's obvious anyways when it's modifying a lowercase noun 2) growing sentiment that hyphenating makes these groups seem "less" American.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The general move of most style guides has been towards dropping the hyphen. It also seems apparent that, as Bagumba suggests, a hyphen is NOT needed when used as an adjective. So, for instance, there was a recent move of Asian American studies → Asian-American studies, as the result of a RM. But this seems contrary to the overwhelming precedence without the hyphen, as seen in the names of every major academic program under that name (e.g. UCLA, Berkeley, SFSU, OSU, Cornell, etc.) and the main academic guild on the subject, the AAAS. A similar precedence can be seen with African American studies (e.g. Harvard, BU, Berkeley, Stanford, etc.).--Caorongjin (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – it seems like most organizations are not using the hyphen these days, and we could definitely use the consistency. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support After looking at several reliable sources and reviewing the sources mentioned here, the trend is to not hyphenate. I agree with the arguments made and given the sources that support not hyphenating, I agree with having guidelines that adhere to MLA, APA, and AP style guidelines. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Use normal English hyphenation – An African American and European American are not hyphenated; but African-American culture and European-American background are. Nothing special here. Compound nouns used as adjectives get hyphens to help the reader parse them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Hyphenate exactly the same as other compound adjectives in English. There's nothing magically special about these. If one is used as a modifier (an African-American actor) it's hyphenated; if it's not used as a modifier (the most popular candidate among African Americans) then it's not hyphenated. This is dirt-simple, and the MOS:HYPHEN guideline exists for a reason, so just follow it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    Comment The current MOS:HYPHEN is not clear. It currently states: "But never insert a hyphen into a proper name (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine)." I am not sure how "Middle Eastern cuisine" is considered a proper name. On that basis, are "Middle Eastern literature" or "Middle Eastern studies," and your example of "African-American actor" also considered proper names? — Caorongjin (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    Hee, hee. I'm gonna let McCandlish explain that one. Fasten seatbelts (or seat-belts). EEng 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • When did the MOS stop reflecting what Reliable Sources say on the matter? If the material doesnt reflect the source, then is wrong. If it does and the MOS says otherwise, the MOS is clearly not working. The MOS is meant to be a guide on best practice. And the best practice for almost every situation on Wikipedia is 'What do reliable sources say about this?'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    The MOS does reflect what a lot of reliable sources say on the subject. But as some publishers have style that changing to drop the hyphen, we don't need to be quick to follow that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    Dicklyon, I would be curious to know which reliable sources say to keep the hyphen. The CMOS17, for instance, gives examples "African Americans" and "African American president" with the explanation "Open in both noun and adjective forms, unless the first term is a prefix or unless between is implied." (§7.89) It further states "since the hyphen does not aid comprehension in such terms as those mentioned above, it may be omitted unless a particular author or publisher prefers the hyphen." (§ 8.39) — Caorongjin (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    The summary at (blacklisted link) amp.en.google-info.org/371846/1/hyphenated-american.html says "Modern style guides most often recommend dropping the hyphen between the two names except when the compound is used as an adjective, some, including Chicago manual of style, recommend dropping the hyphen even for the adjective form. ..." Most style guides are not easily searchable online, and my collection is not accessible during WFH, so I'd have a hard time getting back to primaries from there. But I believe this one is correct in characterizing Chicago as being a bit of an outlier. I'm not claiming that a website is a WP:RS, but that's not the relevant criterion for this kind of discussion. Here's a site that made their own determination, justified with "This decision, we felt, treats these terms in the ordinary way." I think we should do the same. And as Chicago says, "it may be omitted unless a particular publisher requires it." It's OK with them if we require it; and we do. There's lots of discussion in sources explain that religious affiliation (Jewish or Muslim Americans) and Native Americans are different, and don't typically take hyphens even as adjectives; I wasn't aware of that. Point is, there are different and conflicting dimensions of consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    I can appreciate the limitations of WFH (nevermind whether one has access to a library in normal circumstances). I am just slightly doubtful of these claims of "most" or "a lot." Please note that, as opposed to CMOS16, which you quoted, CMOS17, which I quoted, expands their position to "unless a particular author or publisher prefers the hyphen"; this seems inline with the next discussion in this Talk re: capitalization.
    My point is less about differences of opinion out there, and more about developing consensus for Wikipedia's style guide, which may evolve over time. It also seems to me that if the hyphen "suggests bias," as per CMOS16/17, then that goes against the aspirations of WP:BIAS. — Caorongjin (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a question. Is there a possibility that there different attitude to this in different regions of English language countries. The provided style guides are all USA ones, but I’m wondering what for instance the UK thinks of this issue.Tvx1 00:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know what newspapers/magazines use. But the UK equivalent of CMOS would be New Hart's Rules, which seems inconsistent. Speaking about compound words in §3.3.3, it says "In general do not hyphenate capitalized compounds," followed by the example "Latin American studies." It refers to §4.11.1, which gives an example of "Greek-American wife" with the description "American by birth but Greek by descent, hyphen" (as opposed to an en dash for "Greek–American negotiations"). Elsewhere, in §21.4.3, it clarifies that US English usually drops hyphens in compound words. Caorongjin (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    The 2015 Fowler's, which attempts somewhat to bridge the Atlantic, suggests that compound adjectives formed by an adjective and a verb (e.g. good-looking) should get the hyphen. It stated here's no need for a hyphen between an adverb and adjective, so skilfully painted portrait etc. Other than that, hyphens are apparently on the wain. New Hart's Rules gets a mention there as being more comprehensive in its treatment and useful for guidance on specific words, as does the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors. The advice seems to be in favour of re-phrasing to avoid heavy handed use. So support no hyphen Chumpih. (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    I do like New Hart's Rules, too. It acknowledges "that US English usually drops hyphens in compound words", but that's not a reason to do so in Wikipedia, where being as clear as possible for the benefit of the reader is still part of our mission. Americans are just ignorant of the affordances of English grammar and punctuation, too often, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
"Irish-Canadian of American origin" or "American-Canadian of Irish ancestry" would be my choices. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose instruction creep to this level of detail, and context matters in each specific case. Generally support the use of a hyphen when the compound is used as an adjective. but it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. The presence or absence of a hyphen does not change the meaning of anything in any fashion, it is merely an alternative method of organising the text, a visual indicator of the relationship between the words joined by the hyphen. The notion of a hyphen "showing bias" is totally absurd. Also, comment to one thing that the OP mentioned, about terms like "Native American" and "West Indian" not being hyphenated: short answer, those are a completely different kind of construction and different rules apply. (in the case of West Indian, the "West" is not a descriptor of the person; a West Indian is a person from the West Indies). Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: If it affects anyone's !vote here, The New York Times appears to have dropped the hyphen from their style guide this week. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose instruction creep. It makes sense for different uses of ethnic descriptors to have different sorts of hyphenation; the hyphenation is generally used in the adjective form, while the absence of hyphenation is used when using the group as a noun. Wikipedia currently has this sort of thing in place; the page regarding Americans of Italian descent is Italian Americans, while the cuisine of this group is Italian-American Cuisine (though I will admit that seeing "Italian American" without the hyphen just doesn't look right to me). The month to honor the achievement of the American descendants of Irish people is Irish-American Heritage Month, while the group itself is referred to as Irish Americans. I don't see a reason for wholesale change on this at the current moment.
Regarding Chumpih's analysis using Fowler's, which attempts to bridge the atlantic. wouldn't we possibly want to leave it up to the type of English being used rather than making it consistent across all of the English Wikipedia? I don't see why to enforce an American English hyphenation standard on article written in British English (or vice-versa).
Regarding Caorongjin's point about the move request, I think that there might be a WP:COMMONNAME argument that you are getting at with respect to the article title. COMMONNAME aside, the move request was only attended by two people; there might be a sensible rationale for a move request on that particular article if your analysis is correct. I would also posit the possibility that "Asian American Studies" is a compound noun containing a qualifying noun; treating "Asian-American" as an adjective modifying the noun "studies" feels a bit weird to me. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS currently says that section titles should "Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." Below, it suggests that such links might create "technical complications". Is that still true, and does this restriction still make sense? And does it apply to talk pages? I ask because links in talk page section titles are ubiquitous. On WikiProject talk pages and Noticeboards, it appears to be standard practice to link to the article under discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The MOS only applies to articles, not talk pages. pburka (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the question is more whether "technical complications" actually result, which would apply on talk pages, too, I presume. If so, we could say something on talk page guidelines, not in the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
In the mobile interface, there are some technical bugs that arise with links in section headers; I can't recall exactly what they are at this moment, but the issue goes away when you "view as a wiki page" (which is the only way to reply to talk page posts on mobile, anyway, and is overall a much better interface than the default talk page mobile interface). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firejuggler86 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Aside from the technical aspect, is there really a reason to do it? Any link in a section title can easily be presented within the section's content, you would think. Appearance-wise, it's a matter of consistency having all section titles in the same font color. That might not matter so much on a talk page, but in an article, hyperlinks in titles would look odd in my opinion. Might also be misleading, with newer visitors thinking it links to another section within the same article as opposed to jumping to a different article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory guidelines on all-caps within quotations

MOS:CONFORM says (regarding quotations):

Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics), but most other styling should be altered. Underlining, spac ing within words, colors, ALL CAPS, small caps, etc. should generally be normalized to plain text. If it clearly indicates emphasis, use italic emphasis ({{em}}) or, in an already-italic passage, boldface (with {{strong}}).

MOS:ALLCAPS:

Do not write with all capitals for emphasis; italics are preferred (see § Do not use for emphasis, above). In quoted material, all caps or small caps for emphasis can be replaced with {{strong}} (or HTML <strong>); see WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting § STRONG.

The MOS:FORMAT cross-ref there points to:

HTML's <strong>...</strong> emphasis, which usually renders as boldface, can be used in quotations to represent material boldfaced (or given in all-caps or small-caps) in the original material. It can also be rendered with the {{strong|...}} template.

The last two quotes say that caps-for-emphasis in quoted material should be replaced with <strong>...</strong> markup. But the first quote seems to say that caps-for-emphasis should generally be replaced with <em>...</em>. Seems like these should be harmonized, though it's unclear to me which rule should be the canonical one. Colin M (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

In books, what's generally used to indicate emphasis is italics, so we should stick to that, since in Wikipedia we normally use bold to indicate either the title of the article or a redirect to the article or a specific section, and using bold for emphasis would become confusing. —El Millo (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I don’t have hard evidence to back it up, but my experience has been that most articles use italics for emphasis and that bold is less common. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move discussion in progress

An editor has requested that Climate change denial be moved to a different name. Please join the discussion at Talk:Climate change denial#Requested move 8 July 2021. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Apostrophes and bold

Which do you prefer?

  • A confectioner's job encompasses...
  • A confectioner's job encompasses...

(It's bold because the term redirects here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I like:
  • A confectioner's job encompasses... (formatted as '''confectioner'''{{'s}})
because neither the apostrophe nor the "s" is bold. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
In fact, neither of them is necessary and both should be avoided. I've rewritten the sentence in confectionery to get rid of the apostrophe entirely. Simples. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, "etymology" and User talk:Catchpoke

This user has been searching and replacing all uses of section headings like "Origin of the term" and replacing them with "Etymology", claiming MOS:SECTIONSTYLE as his justification - presumably because he thinks "the term" is an unnecessary reference back to the article subject. I don't see this at all and, without getting into a long discussion about what "etymology" covers, I see this as inappropriate, unhelpful and confusing to the reader. Imo, "etymology" should generally only used in cases where the origins or meanings in other languages (or older forms of English) are actually covered in the section. So for eg Silver Age of Comic Books, Mithridatic Wars, Palace economy, and Catholic imagination (where this is not the case), "etymology" should not be used. He has changed all these in the last couple of days, and is edit-warring to keep these changes. I'd like to establish a consensus that these changes are undesirable, and not compelled by the MOS. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's see: we have List of band name etymologies, List of computer term etymologies, and List of company name etymologies; most if not all of these use modern english. This is entirely appropriate. Catchpoke (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I have the same concerns as etymology and origins are not necessarily the same thing. MOS:SECTIONSTYLE mentions nothing about the edits that Catchpoke is doing. I would argue it's disruptive editing. – The Grid (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
To both of you, you need to read etymology and compound (linguistics). An etymon is a word origin and my edits are not disruptive. If you find the edit summary problematic, I won't use it. Catchpoke (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
No, we find the changes disruptive, and the "etymology" header inaccurate. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
And is this a lie? Catchpoke (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Catchpoke: First, the term "etymology" used in a subheading assumes the reader understands what the word means, whereas "origin of the term" is straightforward. If two editors find you disruptive, chances are you are being disruptive. And since I noticed your edits and find them wrong, you can make that three editors. You can defend yourself, but baldly stating that you're not being disruptive is not really your call. Also, it's frankly disingenuous of you to state that if others "find the edit summary problematic, [you] won't use it" as you obviously know it's not the edit summaries that are the disruption. Per WP:BRD you should refrain from reverting to your preferred versions until consensus is reached. There is no policy or MOS guideline that supports your proposed changes. freshacconci (✉) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
You are wrong. I was thanked by User:Veverve for this and User:Bermicourt agrees that etymology is the proper term. Catchpoke (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I am wrong about what? You need to reach consensus and cease reverting to your version. If you find others that agree and consensus is reached (and keep in mind it's not a simple straw poll), then that's fine. But you don't have that right now and your "nope" comment addresses nothing that was actually said. If you want to convince people I suggest being less condescending, dismissive and argumentative. The onus is on you to convince the rest of us. freshacconci (✉) 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@Catchpoke: I thanked you for that, because I believed you when you wrote it was a MOS standard. If it is not, then in the case of the content of the section of Subreption I think "Origin of the term" fits better, as there is no analysis of the composition of the word, but there is a historical explanation. Veverve (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
At least the one you were thanked for, at Subreption, actually is an etymology section, with details of the Latin origin etc, though I don't believe that means it has to be called that. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)User:Veverve: There is no guidance or policy on which word/phrase to use but "etymology" is far more common than "origin of the term" or "origin of the name". All of you need to read up on the articles I've linked. "etymon" is the origin of a word. If there is a discussion of the methods and/or etymon, there is an etymology. Catchpoke (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
user:Johnbod: You quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so should I quote it too in response to your contradictory reasoning? Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Freshacconci: You don't want to read the pages so it does seem like a simple straw poll. Catchpoke (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently there seems to be no policy that would support the replacement of every Wikipedia occurrence of "origin of..." with "etymology" (or vice versa). Both are acceptable and so we shouldn't be doing any mass changes. I think it would make sense to have a guideline for naming section headings of this type (as opposed to article text), as the origin of an unusual word quite often forms part of the article. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean as opposed to article text? Catchpoke (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • First of all, Catchpoke, etymology is strictly applied to words only, not phrases; and to their origin, not the way they may be applied in novel modern ways. So, for example, the word disc has an etymology: the phrase disc drive does not (though its origin, in the context of computing, can be traced). Recently the community has had to rein in a spate of not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are knowitalls; this guy has just barely escaped an indefinite block (for now) but if you keep this up I predict you won't be so lucky.
    And let me educate you on another point. A section headed ==Origin of the term==, in the article Silver Age of Comic Books, does not "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article", as SECTIONSTYLE warns against, because the subject of that article is the Silver Age of Comic Books, not the phrase Silver Age of Comic Books. Now cut it out. EEng 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    User:EEng#s: you are completely wrong. Etymology has a number of pathways. The pages which have "origin of the ..." have etymologies. Read the material again. I won't use that edit summary again. Catchpoke (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    To User:EEng#s: Maybe you came to the bottom and didn't read [18] which I posted above. Catchpoke (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    No, but I choose to rely on my education and the Oxford English Dictionary over some guy you're diffing on the internet. EEng 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    'Etymology' is certainly used for lexicalized phrases. (That's one of the pathways, though not mentioned in the article you linked to.) I'm not aware of the word ever being used for a transparent phrase like 'Jesus of Nazareth'. I suppose I could speak of the 'etymology' of my WP user name in the sense of the pun involved, but if my parents had actually named me 'Kwami Kagami', it would be extremely odd to speak of the 'etymology' of my name (as opposed to the reasons my parents chose it), and if I did in a paper for publication I suspect the editor would correct me. Speaking of the etymologies of the individual names Kwami and Kagami (or Jesus and Nazereth) would be a different matter, and entirely appropriate.
    But even if you wish to be pedantic and insist that a transparent phrase like 'Toyota Camry' has an etymology distinct from the etymologies of its components, the issue here is whether it's useful to our readers to label headers that way. That is, whether you have discovered the Truth that the rest of us have missed is beside the point, and not a good argument for what you are doing. And saying 'I'm right and you're wrong, so eff you' is a good way to get blocked. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    I think the problem here is that he does, in fact, wish to be pedantic. EEng 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    Especially stating "you're wrong" to other editors. "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong." – The Grid (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Outside of MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, the user has also been applying this replacement to sentences of article prose (eg. in as the crow flies) with the edit summary "grammar". This does seem a misleading way to phrase it, in cases where the text has nothing to say about the origin of any individual words, and a crow is just a crow. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think that he is right that the use of "etymology" is grammatically correct (just about), but it is not semantically correct. This scale of campaign editing against the protestations of all around amounts to vandalism in my opinion. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that there was no grammar problem with what he replaced: "One suggested origin of the term is that before modern navigational methods were introduced...". Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No, sorry I was not being clear. This was not a grammatical improvement, but neither was it introducing a grammatical error. The problem is the completely unnatural effect of the cut-n-paste replacement. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Where he has now got himself a topic ban, so I guess this is concluded. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Engvar

Hello. I'm a new page patroller, and it was recently suggested to me that I use Indian English in bios of Indian people. I went to look up engvar, which I've seen but have no idea how to use. As a new page patroller, am I suppose to be putting {{Use Indian English}} type templates on the articles I patrol? And is there a tool to convert between styles of English if an article is in the wrong style? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You're not obligated to, and some editors would say that adding {{Use Indian English}} would be redundant on articles with clear Indian ties; I don't see the harm in adding it to make it explicitly clear to editors who may not be aware of WP:TIES which variant they're supposed to be using. I don't know of any tools that can analyse an entire page and switch variants to another form; I just do it the long and hard way. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Novem Linguae: Do not add variant of English talk page templates to articles you patrol and do not convert articles between varieties, per MOS:RETAIN. These are only meant to be used in the event of an actual dispute over ENGVAR. Furthermore, they should only be used when there is actual evidence that a given page is actually written in the relevant variety, not applied careless to all pages that seem to belong to a certain variety. There is a separate series of templates for marking the variant an article is written in for maintenance purposes. These are found in Category:Use English templates, and are placed in articles themselves. However, again, these should only be used if there is actually evidence that a given variant has been used. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia bots for style issues

Do all the WP:MOS issues have Bot's to do their dirty work for them?, or is there a list of Bot's that have/haven't been written somewhere? Darcourse (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Darcourse: The WP:GENFIX set contains many of the MOS fixes it's possible to make on an automated basis. But there are many more bots that could be written. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I would strongly advise against using bots to rectify style issues. They don’t recognize situations where an exception to a rule might apply. Human eyes do much better. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I second @Blueboar's statement. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There are certainly some style issues where that's the case, but for many others it is not. I find it concerning to see editors taking such a strong anti-bot stance in such a generalized sense, without even knowing what the specific issues might be. Fundamentally, there is far more style work to be done on Wikipedia than editors available to do it, and when bots can lighten the load, we should welcome that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Sd, you're relatively new to the project. There was a about a ten-year period before your time during which some self-appointed busybodies maintained a pack of bots that went around fixing things that weren't broken and refashioning articles according to their personal stylistic preferences (the self-appointed busybodies' preferences, not the bots'). It was most unpleasant. It's critical to remember that MOS is a guideline, not a policy. Very few of its provisions are suitable for rigid enforcement, and a vanishingly small subset of those are amenable to mechanized enforcement. EEng 06:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
EEng, thanks for filling me in on the history. I can see that being unpleasant, and presume that that is what led to some of our current bot policies. That doesn't affect my view that there are many unwritten bots that could helpfully and uncontroversially improve MOS issues with articles, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that while the MOS is a guideline, WP:COSMETICBOT is indeed a policy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Sdkb, however, I also understand EEng's reasoning. Perhaps a solution can still exist by using semi-automated bots (e.g. by expanding the capabilities of WP:GENFIX). For example, the bot can generate a queue of changes, and decisions can be approved by users. Another possible solution is avoid using bots by making Wikipedia's built-in wiki editing features more powerful by providing suggestions. There are many places where linters are quite needed. We can take inspiration from automated code linting, which is quite commonly used in software development. I understand that English is not as structured as programming languages are, but there are still many trivial things can be cleaned up, such as code spacing for easier readability of inline templates with many parameters. These bots can prove to be worthy when used in conjunction with more structured data from Wikidata. I also want to mention that I've found Wikipedia's help guides, tutorials, and templates very inaccessible and hard to find. It all feels unorganized, and it takes quite some time to find relevant guidelines. (Where can I find a standard template for creating an article about some software? What should the order of the sections be? Why isn't it easier to find the right wiki templates? Will it take me several minutes for me to find how to properly stylize something, or should I just save my time by finding another article and imitating its style?) If the MOS were easier/convenient to navigate/use, I can guarantee that more users will use it while they're editing articles. Perhaps a simple solution (without any bots) is to better integrate the MOS with VisualEditor by using some kind of side panel with navigable MOS menus. Somerandomuser (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Improving GENFIX would be fantastic. We shouldn't handicap ourselves more than necessary, though—WP:COSMETICBOT requires only that an edit be visible to readers, which is a low bar to clear. I'd like to see more instances of bots applying the GENFIX edits that are visible in this way—"it's cluttering my watchlist" is a poor rebuttal to "this edit actively improves readers' experience".
On the aside, making Wikipedia's help resources more useful has been a long and ongoing project. I'd definitely recommend bringing up your thoughts to WT:Help Project to discuss them further. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I've found Wikipedia's help guides, tutorials, and templates very inaccessible and hard to find – You can say that again. Then entirety of HELP: is utterly useless and should be incinerated. See [19] (not actually part of HELP: but would be very at home there.)
  • should I just save my time by finding another article and imitating its style? – As a result of the prior point, yes, that's indeed the best way. I'm certain that's how 100% of editors learn 80% of what they know how to do (and 100% of the first 20% of what they know how to do -- if you can follow that somewhat turgid point).
EEng 05:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Meh… What one editor considers a “minor edit” can be seen by another editor as a “major change”. I have seen protracted arguments over the years about edits that someone initially thought would be “uncontroversial”. While I am not 100% anti-bot, I still urge extreme caution. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Do these Bots exist in other languages, e.g. French or German? I couldn't find the page on fr.. Darcourse (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Remember the Law of unintended consequences, don't assume that a bot is uncontroversial and analyze it the way porcupines make love, very carefully. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Dropping digits from second number/ date in range?

Can somebody drop a link to if and when this is acceptable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE is relevant. pburka (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
That helps. What about page ranges in references? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
MOS:PAGERANGE :) pburka (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
New there was something. With thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_222&oldid=1094761527"